Would someone please answer a simple question I have about this hot topic.
“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.”
Now I’m not even going to debate why this was added because I would be preaching to the choir. Here’s my question!
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED really means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED….does that not mean all state (with a little “s”) laws infringing on said right are UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Spread the Word! ♠
I’m certain that many left minded individuals in their own minds believe that context in terms of the times we live in matters. That some of these weapons could not have been contemplated by the founding fathers and therefore should be infringed. To me it shouldn’t matter. They (those who created 2nd Amendment) were likely thinking to keep a new government honest and in order to prevent tyranny locals can have a militia and can keep whatever arms that a presiding governmental body can have to ensure that tyrannical ruling entities cannot infringe or suppress local individuals/groups. Some arguments I have heard is that the Supreme court has ruled that fighter jets and tanks cannot be included in this. It doesn’t matter because rather than be open to the public their is a fear that if the public has access to military type technology like tanks and air-crafts, etc…. That it would compromise national security. (Incidentally, companies who make such things can be told not to sell to American citizens or their contract with the government would likely be voided.)
This is exactly why I believe the founding fathers wanted us to have what ruling bodies in America could have for weaponry. So it’s citizens wouldn’t give the government an opportunity to be disarmed and suppressed by it’s government. But hey what do I know, it’s just my opinion and my liberal friends seem to think that these things don’t apply anymore and I’m crazy. When it hits the fan my doors will be locked to their physical presence because their minds were locked to the possibilities of what could go wrong.
‘reductio ad absurdum’
My point exactly. It’s not like the founders had not seen advances in technology before and during their lifetimes. i.e.- Bens printing press and electricity (kinda) They knew that weapons had also advanced in the past and would probably follow suit. Try taking your friends smart phone away and tell them that the founding fathers didn’t have that when they were around and it’s not authorized under the 1st Amendment.
Thanks for commenting and I look forward to agreeing with you in the future.