It's a sufficient but not necessary clause.
Maybe, but maybe not. His interpretation may be that the right to eat cereal (or any other breakfast food?) is void unless one adds a (properly?) generous serving of milk to it.
Yes, as long as the rifle worked AND the individual knew what to do with it. One of Washingtons greatest complaints was that the minute men were showing up ill trained, with no supplies, and with weapons that didnt function reliably.
Oh I agree that it matters. Because what it states is that the people should be armed not just with guns to hunt or guns to protect themselves, but also weapons to defend the free state in a time of war.
Learn what the 'f' 'Duh' even means before you use it.
How can the Second protect the arms of the militia? How can it protect the right of the People to bear arms in a militia?
Holy ****!!!2'nd Amendment
'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.'
So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?
The Militia Act of 1903
'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
The Militia Act of 1903 : Parker, James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Militia Act of 1903 is an article from The North American Review, Volume 177. View more articles from The North American Review.View this article on...archive.org
So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.
And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.
And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.
Yes pay no attention to the signs,
I did not realize I had to be THIS picky with people.
Fine:
From the Code of Laws of the United States of America:
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
'(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.'
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
www.law.cornell.edu
THERE!
That has nothing to do with the 2nd at all. Federal laws regulating firearms have been around for nearly 100 years.
We have not used militia's for "the security of a free State" since WWI. I bet you didn't know that we had gun control in the old west too.
WALDMAN: It's a dusty street, and in the middle of the street is a sign that says, welcome to Dodge City, firearms strictly prohibited. So even then, there was more nuanced sense of what the right to keep and bear arms meant than sometimes we might imagine.
INSKEEP: In other words, this was never seen as an absolute right, so far as you know.
WALDMAN: The right to keep and bear arms from the beginning was something that was not an absolute right. It was based on public need and public safety as well as individual freedom. The very first federal gun law came in the 1930s, and for that, you can thank John Dillinger - the bank robbers because they had new technology in the form of sawed-off shotguns and guns from World War I and a getaway car, which was a very brand-new dangerous technology. So they passed federal gun laws.
So I think we now have to decide as a country how we want to balance individual rights and public safety. It's not really going to be up to the framers. It's really up to us. And again, that is how we've always made constitutional change. It's really always been a matter of moving public opinion before the courts will ever move.
Did this apply to residents, too?
The sign was quite clear about that.
A whole 100 years out of the almost 245 years of the existence of the US? Why didn't the Founders impose any federal gun control?
Why do you believe that? Please post the text of the law. The laws in Tombstone didn't apply to residents.
The point is that owning guns has NEVER been a protected right in this country.
That is not what the sign said is it?
So there is nothing to discuss. You don't care what is legal, you only care about your interpretation that is clearly not Constitutional.
Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
The proliferation of modern and far more deadly weapons was the reason for Federal laws. The founders were only talking about muzzle loading black powder weapons. They are the only ones that should be protected by the 2nd too. If you are going to base this "right" on a antiquated amendment it should only apply to antiquated weapons too.
Did it apply to the whole town, or just the northern "civilized" portion? Did the law in Tombstone apply to everyone?
