The 2nd Amendment??
 

"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."

So, does "the people" mean individuals, or "the people" collectively, as represented by their elected state officials?

And if you do believe it is the right of the individual to bear arms, where would you draw a line as to what kind of weapon ordinary individuals can legally possess? Small caliber firearms? Nuclear Bombs? Would you draw a line?

Thoughts? Opinions?

Dave


(P.s. When I joined this group, many of you welcomed me aboard and said you looked forward to my input. To which I responded, "Are you sure about that?"
Because I fully intended to spark serious, yet civil, debate. This is not to say that that didn't already exist here. I just meant to state that I intend to throw gasoline on the fire.)

It clearly means the people cumulatively and has nothing to do with individual rights to threaten others.

Lot's of posts here on this you may want to do a search and read some.
I am about talked out on the subject. (and that's saying allot!)

"Bear arms?" Geez, I didn't know it was spelled like that. I always thought it had to do with the right to wear short sleeves.

Regards,

D-Ray

They don't? Where have you been?

You're right, I didn't check. But I don't see the harm in bringing it up again.
If you're talked out, abstain. It's cool, I'll still love you, Man.

Dave

".....shall not be infringed." So, I guess it only applies to sleeves with fringes?

Dave

As near as I can determine from reading Madison's notes on the convention debates it had much to do with giving the Federal government some contol over the militia. The 13 colonies (States) resisted this, however if a militia was to be the replacement of a standing army there had to be some commonality of arms. A supply of 50 calibre mini-balls would be little use to a 45 calibre smooth bore. Then of course there was the need for people to be able to hunt for food as well as defend themselves in frontier locations.

The use of the word "bear" might also be taken to mean if you can't pick it up you can't have it.

As much as I disagree with wholesale arming of all and sundry it is in the Constitution so I will defend your right to arm bears, just in case Sarah P. is around.:D

No harm at all, I hope you have better luck with it. ;)
I just meant that many views are on record here and you could get a feel of all our views.
Here ya go if you are interested.


http://www.politicalchat.org/offroad...ghlight=drunks

In all the discussions of the 2nd amendment I never see anyone deal with the word "infringe". Seems to me that the word is very important in its use here.

[QUOTE=merrylander;8096]As near as I can determine from reading Madison's notes on the convention debates it had much to do with giving the Federal government some contol over the militia. The 13 colonies (States) resisted this, however if a militia was to be the replacement of a standing army there had to be some commonality of arms. A supply of 50 calibre mini-balls would be little use to a 45 calibre smooth bore. Then of course there was the need for people to be able to hunt for food as well as defend themselves in frontier locations.

The use of the word "bear" might also be taken to mean if you can't pick it up you can't have it."

And that's pretty much how I see it.

BTW, I have a brother who is very "passionate" about this issue and thinks anyone off the street should be able to "stop at their neighborhood 7-11 and pick up a Stinger Missle , if feels he needs one". So, I am quite used to dealing with extremist views.;)

Dave