Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Does the right to bear arms extend to all Americans or only "A well regulated militia?"

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
JT123 · M
The comma after the first part means "and" The second part is crystal clear!
Pherick · 41-45, M
@JT123 So you know what the founders meant? If they meant the comma to mean "and" why not just put an and there?

Always amazed how modern-day people KNOW what the founders totally meant by something.

What I care that they were smart enough to allow for documents that live. They are able to be changed, nothing in our founding documents is set in stone. If we all agree it needs to be changed, we can change it.

The role of guns modernly is VASTLY different than the founders had to deal with. Try reading Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29. He goes over the real purpose of the 2nd, and hint, its not that every gun nut should have access to whatever firepower they want.

Hamilton states that a well-regulated (efficient) militia composed of the people will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively large militia can harm a nation's workforce, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections.
SW-User
@JT123 your interpretation
JT123 · M
@SW-User Try and take them and you see how everyone else interprets it! They wrote that amendment specifically for where we are today! The only thing stopping our crooked government from owning us is the fact we're armed. Thanks to my fore fathers these democraps will never be the Socialist dictators from our past that they want so bad to be!
SW-User
@JT123 again, i am curious if you support any limitation?
How do you feel about minorities all being armed just as much as white americans?
Pherick · 41-45, M
@SW-User Never any point in arguing with someone who thinks his home collection of firearms is going to stop a tank or a bunker-busting missile dropped from a drone. Their level of paranoia is way beyond a level to talk to intelligently.
SW-User
@Pherick i am curious as to whether JT feels he should be able to own a tank or bunker busting missile? is there any limitation? But sadly i think you are correct for many extreme gun folks.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@JT123 If it were clear, it probably wouldn't have taken the SCOTUS a hundred years to weigh in on it and the decision would have been unanimous.