Senate Website Gets 2A Wrong?

[adit]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nternal+-+Politics+-+Text)&utm_content=My+MSN

Who cares what the Supreme Court says...

 

[ryan_j]

Technically it is correct. It HAS been debated (past tense). The debate is now over and we have Heller and McDonald.

But they of course live in denial... and it goes well beyond gun rights.

It's all about controlling YOU as a cog in a collective machine and throwing away your individuality. If you talk to some of these people you will see that they think that the Government has the ultimate authority over you and can decide life and death if they wanted. That's how they like it. You're too stupid and untrustworthy to fend for yourself, at least not in their society.

 

[hvymax]

The only controversy should be hanging or a firing squad for all Domestic Enemies.

 

[BigToe]

Amendment II (1791)
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.

Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.


OK, so let's say that the anti 2A people are right. That we only have the right to bear arms if members of a militia. So when it comes time to form a militia to fight for our freedoms, is the government going to allow us arm ourselves?

How daft do you have to be not to understand the concept that the founding fathers brought fourth. That you need arms to form a militia, and not the reverse.

 

[teratos]

Amendment II (1791)
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.

Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.


OK, so let's say that the anti 2A people are right. That we only have the right to bear arms if members of a militia. So when it comes time to form a militia to fight for our freedoms, is the government going to allow us arm ourselves?

How daft do you have to be not to understand the concept that the founding fathers brought fourth. That you need arms to form a militia, and not the reverse.

The only debate is because of ignorance. People do not understand the context of 18th century legal writing. There was often a prefatory and an operative clause. The prefatory clause is irrelevant to the spirit of the law. The operative clause is what is intended. You only need to read:

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prefatory clause discusses why the operative clause is necessary. Why? For the security of a free State? Who may threaten the Freedoms? Enemies foreign and domestic. It would be remarkable if a bunch of guys who didn't want a standing army made laws which said only the army could have arms.

 

[TxAggie]

The only debate is because of ignorance. People do not understand the context of 18th century legal writing. There was often a prefatory and an operative clause. The prefatory clause is irrelevant to the spirit of the law. The operative clause is what is intended. You only need to read:

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prefatory clause discusses why the operative clause is necessary. Why? For the security of a free State? Who may threaten the Freedoms? Enemies foreign and domestic. It would be remarkable if a bunch of guys who didn't want a standing army made laws which said only the army could have arms.

I agree, however, in my non legal opinion at least, the predatory clause in the Second Amendment also allows for the formation of the civilian militia. A rather fine point, but an important one, and one I feel will be the next step in the 2A struggle.

 

[Robert1955]

The only controversy should be hanging or a firing squad for all Domestic Enemies.

Hanging is the only way, remember they don't like guns.

 

[CrazySanMan]

I've always heard the debate is over the commas, that there are commas in different places in different early writings of the amendment, and that the comma position changes the meaning of the text from individuals to groups.

 

[teratos]

I agree, however, in my non legal opinion at least, the predatory clause in the Second Amendment also allows for the formation of the civilian militia. A rather fine point, but an important one, and one I feel will be the next step in the 2A struggle.

Absolutely.

 

[EL1227]

As Mr. Burns would say ...

The only debate is because of ignorance. People do not understand the context of 18th century legal writing. There was often a prefatory and an operative clause. The prefatory clause is irrelevant to the spirit of the law. The operative clause is what is intended. You only need to read:

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prefatory clause discusses why the operative clause is necessary. Why? For the security of a free State? Who may threaten the Freedoms? Enemies foreign and domestic. It would be remarkable if a bunch of guys who didn't want a standing army made laws which said only the army could have arms.

I agree, however, in my non legal opinion at least, the predatory clause in the Second Amendment also allows for the formation of the civilian militia. A rather fine point, but an important one, and one I feel will be the next step in the 2A struggle.

 

[Dogabutila]

I've always heard the debate is over the commas, that there are commas in different places in different early writings of the amendment, and that the comma position changes the meaning of the text from individuals to groups.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

 

[IndispensableDestiny]

At the bottom of the page, it reads:

S.PUB.103-21 Prepared by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate with the assistance of Johnny H. Killian of the Library of Congress.

S.PUB. 103-21 would have come out between 1993 and 1995.

 

[40-Cal-Polymer]

I agree, however, in my non legal opinion at least, the predatory clause in the Second Amendment also allows for the formation of the civilian militia. A rather fine point, but an important one, and one I feel will be the next step in the 2A struggle.

"Free State Militia" Marylands Finest Minutemen. I honest have to agree with this statement Aggie. I fear that in our present state of affairs, It'll be inevitable to secure our rights and freedoms. Not only as a state, but as a nation.

 

[Benanov]

The only controversy should be hanging or a firing squad for all Domestic Enemies.

If those are the choices...then hanging, as the rope is reusable, and the ammo is better spent putting it through a target.