Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="farmerbyron" data-source="post: 2029510" data-attributes="member: 4953">The argument that the 2A is talking about the National Guard or something similar falls flat on its face from the get go.&nbsp; The Constitution and BOR is a list of negative liberties of govt. and a list of positive liberties for the people.&nbsp; The BOR specifically is a list of things govts. can NOT do.&nbsp; So how anyone could even attempt to make an argument that the second is the exception to this fact, and protects the rights of govts. to be armed exhibits a serious flaw in logic.Add to that, the second amendment is one of only two that specifically have &quot;the right of the people&quot; language in it, you are seriously fighting an uphill battle that the 2A is about the military or Nat Guard&#039;s right to be armed.&nbsp; Along with the fact that the second amendment follows only the right to speak out against your govt. in the hierarchy of rights listed in the BOR.Also to bolster the case, the phrase &quot;well regulated&quot; meant this in the period of our founding.&nbsp;You can reasonably deduce the meaning of &quot;regulated&quot; to be &quot;well provisioned&quot; or &quot;prepared&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; This makes the modern laymen reading of the 2A to be &quot;A well prepared militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&quot;&nbsp; The most disturbing thing to me is that we have 4 justices on the supreme court that cannot understand this most basic of legal documents.&nbsp; They clearly have willful disregard for the intent of the second amendment in favor of their personal agendas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="farmerbyron, post: 2029510, member: 4953"] The argument that the 2A is talking about the National Guard or something similar falls flat on its face from the get go. The Constitution and BOR is a list of negative liberties of govt. and a list of positive liberties for the people. The BOR specifically is a list of things govts. can NOT do. So how anyone could even attempt to make an argument that the second is the exception to this fact, and protects the rights of govts. to be armed exhibits a serious flaw in logic. Add to that, the second amendment is one of only two that specifically have "the right of the people" language in it, you are seriously fighting an uphill battle that the 2A is about the military or Nat Guard's right to be armed. Along with the fact that the second amendment follows only the right to speak out against your govt. in the hierarchy of rights listed in the BOR. Also to bolster the case, the phrase "well regulated" meant this in the period of our founding. You can reasonably deduce the meaning of "regulated" to be "well provisioned" or "prepared". This makes the modern laymen reading of the 2A to be "A well prepared militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The most disturbing thing to me is that we have 4 justices on the supreme court that cannot understand this most basic of legal documents. They clearly have willful disregard for the intent of the second amendment in favor of their personal agendas. [/QUOTE]

Verification