No jokes this week:
I’ve heard more than a few times from people that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was “to provide a means of defense against and deterrent to a tyrannical federal government.” Accepting that this was indeed the intent of the founders, if ubiquitous ownership of guns does not act as a deterrent or even much of a defense against tyranny then how then should we deal with the fact that the underlying purpose of the 2nd amendment is false?
Citing the founders isn’t like citing holy writ. They were fallible. Maybe this is one of those instances and we need to deal with it (by amending the 2nd amendment in some way).
People have a right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia.
If you’re not in a well-regulated militia, apparently, you have no right to won a gun.
Either to won or own a gun I suppose.
The side that cites the 2nd amendment and wants ‘English only” is not that good at English considering they don’t know what a dependent clause is when they see one.
…“to provide a means of defense against and deterrent to a tyrannical federal government.”…
Here is what it does say:
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.
It doesn’t say anything at all about resisting tyranny, or opposing the federal government, or anything remotely like that. It says its purpose is to maintain the security of the state, by arming a well-regulated militia. We have a well-regulated militia. It’s called the National Guard. Those “patriot” paramilitary groups are not regulated by anybody, so they do not qualify for 2nd Amendment protection. If your happiness depends on being able to carry a gun some of the time, join the Guard. You will have to put up with being well-regulated. Live with it.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mon 28 Jul 12:25 PM
RSS - Latest Posts
RSS - Latest Comments
ADVERTISE ON THE BLUE MASS GROUP NETWORK