Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
Yes, precedent has already been set, regulating fire arms is perfectly legal.
Since there has already been a precendent set, further regulation is also legal.
Around 1800 the term regulated was not used to say guns need to be limited or have a federal registration, and more importantly they didn't do any of
that for 150 plus years...
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
So well regulated
is saying "well equiped and fit" one that can match forces in the security of a free state
The term militia
is a civilian army, our military at state or federal level are not called a militia. A militia is form from the civilian
population and not connected to the military....
The term the people
throughout the Constitution, Federalist Papers and others is the term they used to describe the "individual"...
The word "infringed" is rather easy... You do not limit, violate, break, transgress, invalidate, exceed the limit of, obsolete to defeat, encroach on
a right or privilege of these freedoms of the individual to bear arms.
You and others can spin all day, but when you look at just what our forefather's true objective of the 2nd Amendment was all that spin just doesn't
Here are some questions....
Why are representatives pushing a bill based on a gun's looks?
With less than 50 murders due to ARs out of the 9000 per year due to all guns why is the AR the point here? 800 are from shotguns and they are
ok..well except for the few that "look" evil.
Why do people argue the meaning of words to allow for "infringement" of the people's rights and not just push to have the Amendment changed, or have a
new Amendment? If the vast majority of the people speak then it should happen.
Why do people feel that we are past any critical point of a tyrannical Government when it is still happening throughout the world.
Why didn't the anti-gun crowd go ape crazy when Bush and now Obama trampled the 4th Amendment?
Germany marched across Europe with little or no resistance....how would 50 million Chinese fair today if they tried to marched across America compared
to a scenario where all guns are out of the hands of the civilian population. I can tell you being in the military for 30 years and 10 of it during
the cold war, our 300 million civilian guns was and still is a big deterrent to the idea of invasion of a foreign force.
If anyone says it is stupid that our civilian force would even think they could match up with a military... I would need to say it happens all the
time and does well, and the second part is if you feel this way then why are you not concerned that our right has already been infringed on to cause
With the last ban, there was no reduction in the murder rate...what are we trying to do this time? And once again we are talking 50 murders out of
By all your logic of what "infringe" means why not just outlaw all guns but the BB gun and say well that meets the intent of the 2nd Amendment....
edit on 27-1-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)