Because that is part of it - militia is actually mentioned in the Amendment. At the time, there were the terrible Frenchmen and savage Indians on the frontiers of the fledgling country. We had just repelled the Brits (in throwing off our own government) and were concerned they weren't gone for good (they weren't, War of 1812, and such).

Boosie - you're better than this.

If I tell you the First Amendment is about freedom of speech, then later point out it protects religious expression, are you going to say:

"Hold up, Ace - you just said the First Amendment protected speech - now you're talking about religion. Make up your mind."

So, I'm telling you the 2nd Amendment has at least 3 objectives:

1. Check on power of the state

2. Deter foreign invasion (nation of riflemen)

3. Individual (and community) self-defense

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by boosiebadazz

Member since Feb 2008

80548 posts

Posted on 5/20/14 at 5:38 pm to Ace Midnight

The entire point of my simple-minded Socratic questioning was to draw out the explanation the pure originalists have for the regulations we have today. I'm good with the 2nd being about all those things you listed. I've yet to see a Founding Father make a distinction between classes of weapons the citizens are allowed to have and the classes of weapons the government is allowed to have. Why aren't the originalists arguing for a repeal of all regulations?

If it is so cut-and-dry as some here say, why aren't you screaming bloody murder about the unconstitutional constraints placed on the People's right to bear arms of whatever sophistication and lethality that technology and the free market will provide?

This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 5:44 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board