Odd, isn't it?
That they gave the right to the people, and not just the militia?
No, it's not odd.
The problem with the whole 2A thing is that the right have distorted the 2A to mean what they want it to mean, and ignoring hundreds of years of history in the process. The left are fighting back against the right and then distorting the 2A to mean what they want it to mean.
So you have an argument of two lots of people who have no ******* clue what they're talking about, and anyone that does know gets ignored and told to **** off repeatedly.
Don't you love partisan politics?
Wouldn't it make more sent to have proportional representation so there'd be more political parties, more voices, more choice and less bullshit?
and you, alone, know the real meaning?
The reasoning behind the 2nd is: "which means the right to be in the militia."
At the time the 2nd was written, to be in the militia, one must be male, between the ages of 16-45, (57 in one or more areas).
Is it your claim that women are not allowed to own firearms, nor can males under the age of 16, nor over the age of 45?
No, not me alone.
But then I see you don't read well. I didn't say the reasoning behind the 2A is "which means the right to be in the militia." I said the Right to Bear Arms means the right to be in the militia.
Okay, I'll show you. It's quite simple really.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
In 1789 the House (Senate records were kept a secret, unfortunately) Mr Gerry had quite a few things to say about a proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter part of this proposed Amendment said:
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
So, this proposal basically wanted to say that some people didn't have to bear arms if their religion said that this was wrong.
Simple logic here says that the founding fathers would not go around protecting the right of people to walk around carrying guns in an amendment that was about the militia.
They protected the right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that wasn't controlled by the government. Why would you protect the right of people to walk around with guns? No, you protect the right of people to be in the militia so the govt can't take that away.
Anyway, back to the document.
Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
Well, Mr Gerry seems to think that they're talking about MILITIA DUTY. That actually he's used "bear arms" and "militia duty" as synonyms. Why would he does this if bear arms didn't mean "militia duty"?
Mr Jackson said:
"Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
So basically Mr Jackson either wanted people who didn't partake in militia duty to pay an equivalent, or he wanted people who didn't carry guns around with them in the streets to pay an equivalent. Which is most likely in an amendment about the militia?
"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
So, Mr Jackson used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service".
So, in this text we have "bear arms" being used by the Founding Fathers in a document that would become the Second Amendment and all the time they used the term to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" and not once did they use it to mean something not connected with the militia.
There's a lot more evidence where this came from. There's NO EVIDENCE, nothing at all, that suggests that "bear arms" means to walk around with guns, there's no evidence or logic as to why the Founding Fathers would protect something like walking around with guns in an amendment about th militia.
