Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Open Carry for OK
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jdagreek" data-source="post: 1498094" data-attributes="member: 14916"><p>You are ok as long as you don't post the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment. Here is what it actually says in total "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."</p><p></p><p>Because of the reference to the necessity or having a well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia and that is what was intended in December of 1791, or so it seems to me.</p><p></p><p>Logic tells me that if it was intended that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed then that is all the 2nd Amendment would have said. If that were the case then there would be no room for debate and/or different opinion on what the 2nd Amendment was actually intended to mean. However, since there is the reference to "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" then that does create the need for an interpretation of exactly what the language in the 2nd Amendment was actually written to achieve.</p><p></p><p>That is what many people just want to gloss over. They simply want to read the 2nd Amendment as if there was no reference at all to the militias. But, you simply can't read the total of the 2nd Amendment without consideration and wondering what exactly they meant by including the right to keep and bear arms in the context of the militia.</p><p></p><p>I have read the 2nd Amendment many times. My interpretation of it is that it was written with the intent of not allow infringement of the peoples right to keep and bear arms in the context of having armed private citizens in service to the militias of the time. In fact, my thought is that if there hadn't been the real need to provide for an armed militia [as the word militia was understood and in common use at the time in 1791] there likely wouldn't have ever been the 2nd Amendment as we know it today.</p><p></p><p>So, from my standpoint, I think we are indeed fortunate that in 1971 there was a great need to ensure the militias remain strong and to keep them strong and viable, hence the total wording of the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, we might have been left with absolutely nothing to hang our hats on when it comes to the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.</p><p></p><p>That is just my take on the 2nd Amendment.</p><p></p><p>I know the strict "gun rights" folks will go ballistic, but the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And, there is no way to remove the references to the militia -- they are there and they were there for a reason unique to 1791.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jdagreek, post: 1498094, member: 14916"] You are ok as long as you don't post the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment. Here is what it actually says in total "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." Because of the reference to the necessity or having a well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia and that is what was intended in December of 1791, or so it seems to me. Logic tells me that if it was intended that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed then that is all the 2nd Amendment would have said. If that were the case then there would be no room for debate and/or different opinion on what the 2nd Amendment was actually intended to mean. However, since there is the reference to "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" then that does create the need for an interpretation of exactly what the language in the 2nd Amendment was actually written to achieve. That is what many people just want to gloss over. They simply want to read the 2nd Amendment as if there was no reference at all to the militias. But, you simply can't read the total of the 2nd Amendment without consideration and wondering what exactly they meant by including the right to keep and bear arms in the context of the militia. I have read the 2nd Amendment many times. My interpretation of it is that it was written with the intent of not allow infringement of the peoples right to keep and bear arms in the context of having armed private citizens in service to the militias of the time. In fact, my thought is that if there hadn't been the real need to provide for an armed militia [as the word militia was understood and in common use at the time in 1791] there likely wouldn't have ever been the 2nd Amendment as we know it today. So, from my standpoint, I think we are indeed fortunate that in 1971 there was a great need to ensure the militias remain strong and to keep them strong and viable, hence the total wording of the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, we might have been left with absolutely nothing to hang our hats on when it comes to the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. That is just my take on the 2nd Amendment. I know the strict "gun rights" folks will go ballistic, but the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And, there is no way to remove the references to the militia -- they are there and they were there for a reason unique to 1791. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Open Carry for OK
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom