I don't ignore either part. Remember, who is the militia? According to Madison it is all of us.
No, I'm sorry. My reading of the thoughts of the founders has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they men the arms trade to be free and open and without the fetters it currently has. On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > > Ok, here's the actual text: > > "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." > > The first clause sets up the second clause. The context being set for > the right to bear arms is that of security of a free state and the > need for a well regulated militia. "Well regulated" is, indeed, > exclusionary and specifically sets up the notion that there is going > to be regulation...which is the job of Congress. That's where things > become far less than cut and dried. > > If the 2nd Amendment said "All citizens have an inalienable right to > keep and bear arms" then I would agree with you, but it doesn't say > anything that straight forward. > > You could choose to ignore the first half of the amendment. Plenty of > people do for their own purposes. However, it is intellectually > dishonest and you can't blame others for ignoring "shall not be > infringed" if you're going to ignore half the text yourself. > > Judah > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Jeff Garza <j...@garzasixpack.com> wrote: > > > > Precisely... shall not be infringed is pretty cut and dry. I don't see > any > > exclusionary language in there... or anything indicating congress has the > > authority to infringe that right. > > > > As for the states, it's only recently that the second has been held to > apply > > to the states rather than just the Federal government. But with that > being > > said, the whole idea of "reasonable restrictions" that people trot out > for > > display is a joke. No where in the constitution or the bill of rights is > > any language about what's "reasonable". That's a fairly modern > convention > > (The "reasonable person" clause you see in so many laws these days) which > > effectively opens up carte blanche on what can be made illegal. > > > > Where are the "reasonable restrictions" on voting? > > > > Jeff > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:355715 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
