Posted on 02/13/2014 12:56:58 PM PST by crazylibertarian
The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution reads thus: “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.” A Jacksonville, Florida progressive has stated that this means the right belongs to the militia, not the people as stated in the second part of the sentence.
This has been an argument from Leftists for decades, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which has never given up its goal of placing this country under an economic dictatorship. ACLU sponsors leftist talk shows but has NEVER give a penny, that I know of, in sponsorship of any libertarian talk show despite their devotion, at least as strong, to The Constitution. You see, true libertarians are proponents of freedom, ACLUers and progressives are proponents of enslavement to the government which they think of as them.
A logically parallel statement to the Second Amendment would be: A good cake being necessary to a wedding celebration, the right to buy and have an oven, shall not be infringed. What is the goal and who would have the right, the people or just the wedding celebrants?
No progressive will address this because no progressive can.
exactly.
Made sense as they would all be the ones comprising the army (if pressed into service) at the time.
Swiss still have this idea. Israel too.
Our second amendment was put forth after our Founding Fathers studied the Swiss model. They did quite a bit of review on the subject. They’d seen the powers the Swiss had stood up to for centuries, with militia, and many feared a standing army.
If y’all want to read a really good book about this subject and it’s history, check out, “That Every Man Be Armed,” by Stephen P. Halbrook. I listen to the audiobook when I’m at work. Excellent stuff.
I’ve always thought that the phrase “well regulated” meant “efficient/proficient/skilled/accurate.” Re: “Regulator clocks.”
Regulated” by your interpretation has the meaning of “...bound by law/required.”
In context, using my understanding of the word regulated, the law reads “a skilled militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,....”
Try inserting your definition into the 2nd Amendment.....
Note I resist any interpretation of words that believes that the 2nd Amendment refers to any of limitation or requirement on the People.
bkmk
Regulated” by your interpretation has the meaning of “...bound by law/required.”
No. By my definition, it means it be kept in good working order, with maintained functionality. The referenced laws were what made it mandatory.
On a related note, early court rulings also said that substantial state restrictions on firearms were unconstitutional on the grounds that the states and the union could not deprive each other of a functional militia. I haven’t seen where that was overturned...just ignored.
Since all males at the age of 18 are required to register for selective service, I’m thinking that pretty much constitutes a militia.
. . . and you actually think that journalists respect the right to freedom of the press for anyone other than themselves?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.