Why do some think the 2nd amendment pertains only to the military’s right to bear arms and not the individual?
January 16th, 2010 by eranio
"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." Why would the founding fathers find it necessary to spell out a soldier’s right to have a gun? Isn’t it obvious that the military has to have guns (even back in those days); what else are they suppose to fight back with? sticks and stones?
Posted in military guns
January 16th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Because they fear freedom and liberty.
January 16th, 2010 at 5:33 am
The people you refer to have a deep seated fear of personal responsibility, and by extension, of personal rights.
January 16th, 2010 at 5:33 am
they know better ,they are not that dumb i hope, they are just useing that pharase to try and take the ordinary citizens right to have a gun away ,that is what its all about,,,,,,
January 16th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Look at the time when it was written. You needed to have a shotgun to keep the wolves away from your chicken coop so you could eat all winter. The military was made up of the common man who brought their own weapons to the battlefield and in europe it was normal not to allow anyone to have a gun or weapon who was not a landed nobleman. You see in North America there was enough land for everyone so everyone had a stake in protecting it. However, I ask you who are these Militia protecting you from now? When was the last time they were useful for anything? You think we Canadians are going to attack you? Why would we bother? Or the illegal immigrants who come to your country and take the jobs you born Americans wouldn’t take even if you were starving to death?
Please all you do is give criminals an easy way to get a gun. Steal it from your own house and then use it to carjack your car.
Actually back then guns weren’t the real main fighting tool it was just the first. When they were close enough for hand to hand fighting they would put a form of knife on the tip of their guns for close up range and that form of hand to hand was used right up into the first world war. The machine gun stopped this practice.
I think you might want to look into the history of your own people to understand the true difference in living conditions you have to the original Americans.
Next you’ll be calling for no tax on tea.
By the way where were all these independent militia when you have a disaster? I don’t hear about them ever truly aiding their fellow Americans who are truly in need.
January 16th, 2010 at 5:33 am
what those people don’t acknowledge is that every adult of every state is usually (by state constitution) a member of the "state militia".
One reason for the 2ND amendment is to protect us from our own Government, not to protect our chickens from wolves.
January 16th, 2010 at 5:33 am
They are very wrong. Applying Supreme Court decisions made after this US code, below, was written, it would now include women & have no age cut-off.
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This? (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.