(June 29, 2016 at 2:23 am)Gawdzilla Wrote:(June 28, 2016 at 11:26 pm)RetiredArmy Wrote: Well, ok, I'll bite... Keep the government out of it. A system where the government supplies the guns is a system where the government could someday NOT supply the guns. That's the entire premise of the second amendment, to prevent tyranny.
No, it's not. The 2A was meant to allow people to assemble for militia training.
Now I know you're just trollin'... That's about the most incorrect evaluation of the 2nd Amendment I've ever heard.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now, this is the version (there are 3 variances) ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State at the time, Thomas Jefferson. Let's get that first part out in the open.
"A well regulated militia" means a well regulated militia. It means a chain of command, it means a more effective force for defense from both tyranny and invasion. A structured force is certainly better than willy-nilly everybody with a gun. Don't get me wrong, willy-nilly everybody with a gun is still effective, just not to the degree a structured force is.
"Being necessary to the security of the free state," is plain enough, but we can dive in a bit for the sake of clarity. This is referring to the security from both internal and external threats. Obviously, any place on the planet has to worry about aggression and power struggles, either directly or indirectly. Why would our founding fathers put something like this in our constitution? Well, the American Revolution was still fresh on the mind, it being 1791 (only 8 years removed), and is there any doubt as to the religious tyranny of England at the time? Let's put that back together and read it as the coherent thought it is...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state," I certainly wish a word or two had been added to make it more clear for those wanting to ignore the meaning... "BECAUSE a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But, they didn't include those words and the intent is still clear. We don't always have to go out, as citizens, and conduct military drills. People do inherently know how to fight, and strong leaders can whip a force into effective shape rapidly. Doing so without firearms is a silly notion, and that's the intent. If and when the militia is needed, it's armed to the teeth. Ignoring the intent with an obtuse attitude, whining to get your way, does not work when an honest evaluation of the text is performed. You may not like this interpretation, but it is accurate.
If you have any further questions or doubt, I refer you to United States Supreme Court rulings District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and Ceatano v. Massachusetts (2016).
Creationists are like Slinkys: It's hard not to giggle when they tumble down the stairs.
