Assault Rifle ban expiration...the reality

According to Webster's the definition of a militia is; 1. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency 2. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by the law as being subject to call to military service.

This is how my copy of the constitution words the 2nd amendment, is this correct? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed." It seems like it is missing the word and between "free state," and "the right of the people" is missing.

Here's my question; Why are "militia" and "the people" both being lumped together as if they were the same thing? Doesn't amendment II say that both the militia/military and the people both have the right to bear arms?

 
You have to again look at what constituted the milita in those days. Essentially, it was any able-bodied man called upon by the state to serve - so, essentially, they were considered one and the same at that time. And each man was expected to contribute his own rifle.

That's not the case today, with the National Guard's existance. The militia is organized and provisioned by the State.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have to again look at what constituted the milita in those days. Essentially, it was any able-bodied man called upon by the state to serve - so, essentially, they were considered one and the same at that time. And each man was expected to contribute his own rifle.
That's not the case today, with the National Guard's existance. The militia is organized and provisioned by the State.
Click to expand...

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

Like I said, the constitution is not meant to be interpreted. If they didn't mean exactly what they said, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have put it into such a highly regarded document. :duel

 
All laws, including the Constitution, are open to interpretation. If they weren't, you wouldn't have laws - you'd have edicts or canons. The Constitution was written in broad, sweeping language specifically to permit it to be adaptible to a changing nation and society.

 
I think I've lost site of the issue being discussed here. Is this still about the so called assault weapon ban or have we moved on to constitutional law?

My favorite is the 18th amendment. :waste

 
All laws, including the Constitution, are open to interpretation. If they weren't, you wouldn't have laws - you'd have edicts or canons. The Constitution was written in broad, sweeping language specifically to permit it to be adaptible to a changing nation and society.
Click to expand...
Agreed. How the hell coud we expect to use laws and rules written eons ago by some goofy old nearsighted white guys wearing wigs? Much of the constitution is archaic and people who think its the end all be all I hate to say are ignorant.

 
All laws, including the Constitution, are open to interpretation.  If they weren't, you wouldn't have laws - you'd have edicts or canons.  The Constitution was written in broad, sweeping language specifically to permit it to be adaptible to a changing nation and society.
Click to expand...
Agreed. How the hell coud we expect to use laws and rules written eons ago by some goofy old nearsighted white guys wearing wigs? Much of the constitution is archaic and people who think its the end all be all I hate to say are ignorant.
Click to expand...
You've got to be kidding right??? It isn't archaic, it's updated or amended with amendments to reflect the change in society. And another thing it guarantees people like us can express opinions like we are here.

 
who the hell is talking about laws? :blink:

I'm talking about our RIGHTS as citizens of the United States of America. Hence, "The Bill of Rights". And not "The Bill of Laws". Thank god.

By passing bans on guns, I think we're creating a false sense of security. In the process of creating this false sense of security we're giving up our freedoms. I for one enjoy having my freedoms, I don't know about you.

 
the constitution is not meant to be interpreted.
Click to expand...
It's not?????? The whole thing is writen in very broad language. Hence it's extrodinary test of time. Who knew in 1791, you would be using the Constitution to settle INternet Cases.

 
Going by the past posts I would be willing to bet there are also some strong convictions in this thread on states that permit carrying concealed firearms. I'll take the apathetic view on this one too.

 
Won't need an assault weapons ban if John Scarey gets elected. He'll just work harder at getting his "centerfire rifle" ammunition ban passed and that'll take care of that. Semi auto shotguns and most any weapon with a pistol style grip would also get axed. You'll have to fill out some Federal forms if you want to pass your guns down to your kids, and if he gets enough of his buddies into congress... look for the U.S. to try to join in the U.N. treaty banning ALL private ownership of firearms. THAT is frightening. Just because he shows up on a shooting range now and again for a campaign video opp. don't be fooled into believing for a minute that he give one rat's butt about you keeping your guns. I'm off my soapbox now, sorry.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top