There's been such a heated argument about gun rights & legislation as it pertains & in relation to the 2nd amendment, thought I'd start a thread on it. Found this article interesting. Thoughts? How do you interpret the 2nd amendment?
www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-wil-gafney-phd/the-bible-and-the-second-amendment_b_2356432.html
Hear what you're saying, just thought it an interesting perspective since so many conservaties like to talk about rights coming from God or the creator.
The reason I favor confiscation of assault weapons & the high capacity mags is the same reason I'm for banning them. Even if your interpretation of the 2nd A is for a defense against a tyrannical govt (instead of for the common good of the state vs an outside enemy), the words "well regulated militia" seems to imply only within that structure, whether it be individuals of "the people" or talking about what has become our military forces.
In other words, I don't see how a well regulated militia translates to an unregulated armed populace under any interpretation. Other than for self defense & hunting whic certainly doesn't require weapons made for mass killing in the shortest time possible.
Second amendment wasn't meant for ordinary Americans. "A well REGULATED MILITIA is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Guns are overrated in preventing tyranny. More effective are government divisions of power which check and balance each other. How rarely have Americans need to use guns to overthrow dictators? Instead guns are used more often to commit crimes and suicides.
Hear what you're saying, just thought it an interesting perspective since so many conservaties like to talk about rights coming from God or the creator.
The reason I favor confiscation of assault weapons & the high capacity mags is the same reason I'm for banning them. Even if your interpretation of the 2nd A is for a defense against a tyrannical govt (instead of for the common good of the state vs an outside enemy), the words "well regulated militia" seems to imply only within that structure, whether it be individuals of "the people" or talking about what has become our military forces.
In other words, I don't see how a well regulated militia translates to an unregulated armed populace under any interpretation. Other than for self defense & hunting whic certainly doesn't require weapons made for mass killing in the shortest time possible.
Hear what you're saying, just thought it an interesting perspective since so many conservaties like to talk about rights coming from God or the creator.
The reason I favor confiscation of assault weapons & the high capacity mags is the same reason I'm for banning them. Even if your interpretation of the 2nd A is for a defense against a tyrannical govt (instead of for the common good of the state vs an outside enemy), the words "well regulated militia" seems to imply only within that structure, whether it be individuals of "the people" or talking about what has become our military forces.
In other words, I don't see how a well regulated militia translates to an unregulated armed populace under any interpretation. Other than for self defense & hunting whic certainly doesn't require weapons made for mass killing in the shortest time possible.
Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
=====
You clearly don't have much understanding of the 2nd Amendment or the context in which it was written.
Alexander Hamilton would be acknowledged as being Republican, today ?
I just now read article 29 again.
Too often,people have selective interpretation in lieu of subjective interpretation which causes them to acknowledge points in any given narrative to support an issue they are a proponent of.
Whether you agree or not with Hamilton,Jay,or Madison on any particular article / issue / idea / op. is still preferential politics as it is today.
And maybe we need to designate a wider array of guns as "Assault Weapons" so as not to promote the 'arbitrariness' of the term, and to be prepared for a tyranny ! Certainly not to effort preventing further gun deaths,especially of innocent people. 
Yeah, I know,some of you want the ability,er,right to obtain whatever type of weaponry you so desire.
Afterall,Hamilton indicated the absurdity of a militia not being of equal strength to its government. And by God,the militia that most of you are referring to is everyday citizens armed and ready for 'revolt.'
And what exactly are some of you afraid that such tyrannical implementations will subtract from your life ??
And those of you who seem so assured that tyranny is on the horizon,if not imminent,do you know something the rest of us don't ?
Celebrate safely !
Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
=====
You clearly don't have much understanding of the 2nd Amendment or the context in which it was written.
You are an arrogant fool & an irritating one at that, lol. But you are consistent, so I'll try to reply. It seems as though you don't even understand what historical context means...either that or you just don't know the history period.
My contention is that the SC got it wrong & that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with individual rights at all. Otherwise, there would be no need or reason whatsoever to preface it with , "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state....". And the fact they wanted no standing army strengthens that belief. That is not to say I believe there are no individual rights for gun ownership. The below articles say it better than I could. I believe there is more truth here than most all of what you hear nowadays. Click more from Amar at the end & then let's hear your thoughts..
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
