02-07-2020, 08:58 AM
lazyengineer Wrote:I very much am in favor of "reasonable" legislation that regulations access to leathality amplification systems.
montana Wrote:I am also in favour of mandatory training for firearm ownership, which probably goes against many people's belief on this forum.I find it fascinating that folks who believe keeping and bearing arms is an unalienable right given by God to all people -- to be used to defend themselves against the government, if necessary -- would advocate that the government control who can keep and bear arms, as well as what type of arms can be owned and carried.
The Second Amendment very clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "the people who may keep and bear Arms, shall be determined and controlled by the government."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
grayfox Wrote:I am in the same camp, it looks like, as LzE, in that I see a realistic limit to what "arms" a militia-level citizen should be expected to show up with, which is the essence of the 2A as I read it.The State militia system that was established by the Founders -- in which militia members were required to furnish their own arms and equipment -- was indeed the "essence of the 2A" as written.
The problem with your statement is that the State millitia system was long ago superseded by the National Guard, so today's militia members are expected to show up with NO personal weapons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
keystone183 Wrote:You guys really don't understand the words 'shall not be infringed', huh?Apparently the phrase has a different meaning to them.
