M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
- Thread starter
- #241
Weapons like that are -exactly- those intended to be protected by the 2nd.As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
27 words. 13 of them describe the conditions under which this amendment was intended.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Why do you deny practically half the wording of the amendment? Certainly the framers intended those words to be there and to mean something. Would the framers think that owning a high caliber cannon is a protected right? Or, would they envision such a weapon in the hands of a well regulated militia?
Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.
As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?