The 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit regulation...

wihosa

Gold Member
Apr 8, 2008
1,785
331
130
In fact it mandates it.
In the Supreme Court majority opinion in the Heller case written by Justice Scalia the point is made that formal membership in the state militia is not required by the individual for that individual to secure a personal right to keep and bear arms ...because in the wording of the time "all male adults" are considered to be members of the "citizen militia " to be called upon in times of national defense. Hence, all adult citizens (women too) are members of the general citizens militia and entitled to keep and bear arms.

The plain reading of the Second Amendment " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed " obviously requires a well regulated militia

Well, the general citizens militia is not "well regulated", it's hardly regulated at all!
We need general regulations of the type the state militias use such as, instruction, training, certification, review, arms storage and yes arms type. It's important to note that in the Heller decision Scalia made the expressed point that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit regulation.

Our leaders have failed us and allowed the NRA to make a perversion of the 2nd Amendment and our daily lives a game of Russian roulette - who will be next to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
 
Back in those days, "well regulated" was a common phrase. At that time, it meant the property of someone being in working order.
Such as a militia being ready with plenty of guns and ammo.
If you paid attention to intent, which is important, you would know your argument doesnt relate to it anyways...
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
 
Back in those days, "well regulated" was a common phrase. At that time, it meant the property of someone being in working order.
Such as a militia being ready with plenty of guns and ammo.
If you paid attention to intent, which is important, you would know your argument doesnt relate to it anyways...
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Again, regulation is not synonymous with infringement
 
Back in those days, "well regulated" was a common phrase. At that time, it meant the property of someone being in working order.
Such as a militia being ready with plenty of guns and ammo.
If you paid attention to intent, which is important, you would know your argument doesnt relate to it anyways...
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Again, regulation is not synonymous with infringement
Did you even read my post? Holy crapola
 
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
 
I have the right to protect myself. You have the right to be a victim if you so choose.

Do you think a criminal gives a shit about the law?

So we should repeal laws against murder?


That was literally a stupid comment. As has already been pointed out to you, a law doesn't prevent a crime. If it did we wouldn't need police.
 
Back in those days, "well regulated" was a common phrase. At that time, it meant the property of someone being in working order.
Such as a militia being ready with plenty of guns and ammo.
If you paid attention to intent, which is important, you would know your argument doesnt relate to it anyways...
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Again, regulation is not synonymous with infringement
Did you even read my post? Holy crapola

Holy crapola is right!
There is no other meaning in the etymology of 'regulation ', the root comes from Latin and means rule.
 
I have the right to protect myself. You have the right to be a victim if you so choose.

Do you think a criminal gives a shit about the law?

So we should repeal laws against murder?


That was literally a stupid comment. As has already been pointed out to you, a law doesn't prevent a crime. If it did we wouldn't need police.

So answer the question; should we repeal laws against murder?, after all murders still happen.
 

Forum List

Back
Top