"A well regulated militia..."

Pilot1

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,565
Points
290
the
That’s a stretch

If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership

It wouldn't make sense for firearms to be limited to the militia.

It wouldn't be a "right" if only the Army can have guns. Every country, even totalitarian nations, allow the Army to have guns.
That isn't a right, and it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights.
In addition, in order to be called up by Unorganized Militia (non Government) you'd need to posses firearms privately. So their story fails there too.
the 2nd doesnt have anything to do with calling up any type of militia,,,
Correct. My point was that even if it were, that private ownership of firearms by THE PEOPLE is required. The comma that separates the two statements is important. It is the PEOPLE'S RIGHT pure and simple.
 

LuckyDuck

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
4,532
Reaction score
1,724
Points
290
You are correct. It is one of the Anti-Federalist Papers and part of the written argument for and against the second amendment..The Slave states wanted to keep arms from the slaves that would most assuredly have allowed rebellions at that time.
The slave states didn't consider slaves to be completely human, only 3/5ths human, as I recall and thus for that reason also, they weren't entitled to the same rights as other people.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
19,418
Reaction score
3,638
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
You are correct. It is one of the Anti-Federalist Papers and part of the written argument for and against the second amendment..The Slave states wanted to keep arms from the slaves that would most assuredly have allowed rebellions at that time.
The slave states didn't consider slaves to be completely human, only 3/5ths human, as I recall and thus for that reason also, they weren't entitled to the same rights as other people.
Your ignorance is not surprising.

It was the Northern states that demanded that slaves not be counted at all. Counting the slaves would have given the Southern states more Representatives in the House. Something the Northern states wanted to avoid in order for them to control those states. The 3/5ths stipulation was the compromise. As you know Republicans have done far more for the Civil Rights of minorities than Democrats. See Abraham Lincoln for starters.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top