why aren't you a prenticious. gun control advocates have read the second amendment and actually understood it. unlike you who have eaten up the NRA propaganda about the second amendment. so please don't insult me simply because you've decided to go whith the NRA's new precedent rather than the one that's existed before.
actually, this is far more "prenticious" than any comment to which you are replying. Did you mean pretentious? Because your comment was that as well...
see this link:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prenticious
you pro gun agenda and inability to actually you know understand the history of the debate on it show. I suggest rather than getting on your pedastel and lecturing people who you know are actualy right and have done the research and get of high horse and do the research.
just a couple of questions here:
1. HOW do you know that there was no research done?
2. can you give references or show this with quotes from the statement? The quote you used appears to be a personal opinion about one persons understanding of what was being posted here by gun control posters. Where is the need for research in that?
3. Would this include utilizing reference material like dictionaries?
the second amendment as written and for the first 3 quarters of the US did not provide for a right to a gun. the second amendment as written provides for one to have a military grade weapon yes but only for militia duties.
no where in the second amendment does it say or imply that it is ONLY for militia duties. If you will note, militia from the time period was drawn from the general populace (see post number 734 regarding the definition of militia)
actually the closest example of how the second amendment is written would be switzerland. no where in the second amendment is there a provision for a right to a weapon for personal use. that idea was NRA propaganda that started 4 to 5 decades ago.
And you can prove this?
Where in the written historical documents including the Constitution does it say that there is no right for a weapon for personal use?
like I pointed out above in post 734, the MILITIA was called upon from the general populace, so there is no way that any founding father ever meant to disarm the public. Too many calls to arms required the member to have their own weapon.
Rifles for hunting and defensive/battle as used by the 'minutemen' of revolutionary days were one and the same. Frontiers rifles were expected to put meat on the table first and then keep Indians,etc at bay. Each personal hunting rifle was handmade by a gunsmith and lovingly cared for by it's owner. This was not a militia-issue firearm.
Some historical information from Virginia:
The law stated that all males above the age of eighteen and under the age of sixty were required to be part of the militia, but there were a number of exceptions.
Each militiaman was expected to provide his own firelock, cartridge box, one pound of powder, and four pounds of ball. Men too poor to provide these materials would be supplied at public expense.
provided from the following link:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/virg_rev.htm
again, the above is just some "simple research" done with an eye on a quick easily made point about the second amendment.
IF the second amendment intended only for the militia to be armed, how would militias arm themselves considering that typical practices were to require each militia man to provide firelock, cartridge box and ball, etc? IOW - reiterating the point I already made: The founding fathers were well aware that the general public needed to remain armed to insure that tyranny could not flourish.
The laws are written for the law abiding citizen, not for the criminal, who, by definition, ignores the law.
So many people tend to ignore this simple fact when pushing for gun control. Just because someone lives in a gated controlled community with its own police force and doesn't need a gun doesn't mean that all people live the same way. See: South Miami,, NYC, Chicago, L.A. and so many other places for proof of this.
Disarming the general public only makes targets of the general public. No one wants to pay for a police officer until he is needed (proven by the fluctuations of officer positions in the states), then everyone wants to complain that there aren't enough cops. Well, the only sure way to protect citizens once disarmed, is to have each one carry a cop. NOT cost effective... the alternative?
yep. a gun.