.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Osborn F Enready As if this issue isn't obvious by the wording in the Bill of Rights alone. |
It IS obvious by the wording alone.
"A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state" is a clear, qualifying statement.
This being the condition, what follows applies. And since
this condition no longer exists, it does not apply.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think violent overthrow and revolt should weigh heavily in their minds when contemplating such nonsense. |
Why? We've been living under the Miller ruling just fine and Americans seem quite comfortable with the increasing regulation of gun ownership. What's to overthrow?
Quote:
| "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Which he said in 1776, immediately after the colonists had successfully engaged in armed rebellion. I daresay his sentiments were likely somewhat different when HE was President... and Commander in Chief, who's duty was, among others, to
"suppress insurrections".
Quote:
|
I think the intent of the 2nd Amendment was made quite clear by the men who drafted, adopted and ratified it.
|
Indeed it was. They made quite clear that the defense of the country should be left to well-regulated militia composed of citizen volunteers, each of whom would supply their own powder and musket... and horse.
If you'd prefer we go back to that system, then by all means, organize a movement to do away with our professional armed forces and replace them with local militias.
Until then, the point was long ago rendered moot.
.