- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You talk about reading the words as they were written and not using any hidden intent, yet you clearly speculate that the founding fathers intended the words to be only from needing a military to protect themselves from England.
'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.'
That clearly states that armed civilians are necessary to the security of a free state. There is no variable stated about a specific time period, nor about a specific threat (Britain). There is no requirement to prove the point valid like you suggest, and even if there was it has been clearly shown time after time that America still faces both a foreign threat, but more specifically a domestic threat that can and does effect individuals. People have a right not to be at the mercy of others.
While I can agree we need common sense gun laws, and that TurtleDude is...well. I won't agree that the second amendment means something it doesn't, nor that people don't have the right to bear arms.
I speculated nothing (imo)...I stated the obvious and gave historical reference/background.
'mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/Submit
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.'
https://www.google.ca/search?newwin....1.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.1.132.kyTSPM6EIC8
It is right there...a militia is 'to supplement a regular army'. It is NOT to defend people from the government since the government IS the one with the army (hence, the militia).
'free State' clearly means the individual states of the union. "State' is capitalized...what else could it realistically mean...NOTHING (no matter what others speculate).
So, the State needs a Militia to keep it free. To do that, it's citizens (in 1770's America) must have guns or there is virtually no militia. Now, with America's GINORMOUS military - they do not (but that is another story).
That is not interpreting...that is stating the obvious...based SOLELY on the actual words of the 2'nd Amendment.
If someone says, 'let's go for a drive'. It is obvious that they mean outside. So if I say he/she meant to go outside to do it, that is not interpreting as much as stating the obvious.
The 2'nd Amendment clearly and obviously refers to the government's ability to raise a militia to defend it and thusly their citizens must be allowed to own guns. It has (and says) NOTHING to do with protecting your home or protecting individuals from 'the State'.
No offense, but it is ridiculously obvious...it states it in black and white. I should not even need to explain it.
The PRIMARY reason (imo) I do is because gun lovers (which I am guessing you might not be - not sure) do not like the obvious because the obvious might not allow them to have access to as many guns as they wish. So they start spinning it or guessing what the Founding Fathers 'really' meant or what some biased yahoo on the SCOTUS thinks (who happens to agree with him/her).
Again, no offense, but I am not getting into some long, drawn out discussion on this. You should know that they usually end up going nowhere around here.
You don't like the way I see the 2'nd Amendment...fine.
But you have almost zero chance of changing my mind on it (since it is SO INCREDIBLY obvious to me) that further discussion on this would be pointless.
Though I appreciate you staying civil - darn rare when 'guns' comes up around here (or almost anywhere in America).
Last edited: