It is about the sacred human right of self defense. The text does not say anything about guns, it says "arms" as in "armaments" as in tanks, fighter jets- everything the government could protect itself with the civilians were not prohibited or hindered access too.
A "well regulated militia" is meant to be regulated by us the citizens not the government. If someone drops off a fully armed battle tank at my house, it will probably collect rust cause gas is too damn expensive! Weapons do not enable anyone to kill. Giving someone a gun does not magically summon evil thoughts and desires to kill. And if it does, it's because the person is mentally sick and needs help not because the gun is some magical demon summoning totem.
I mean what I say. The Bill of Rights is Human Rights, plain and simple. The 2nd Amendment is about self defense, personal and national. It is inappropriate for anyone to dictate what rights I can and can't have access too. All gun laws are not laws at all. They are unconstitutional. They are gun infringements and they all need to be abolished. Do I trust my neighbors with fighter jets and bombs? Well... I sure as fuck don't trust the US government with them...
EDIT: The Founding Fathers were learned scholars. They studied history and knew warfare would evolve. The term "armaments" encompasses ALL armaments. That's why they wrote it that way...
I concur.
The meme
'These are my arms' (points to guns) '..and these are my guns.' (points to arms)
dovetails perfectly into..
"This is for fighting, this is for fun"
Grabs crotch.
"Well regulated" referred to the REQUIREMENT of men between the ages of 17-45 to own a firearm as well as know how to operate and maintain it. This included regular training. Few professions were exempt from this requirement, such as church leaders. Conscientious objectors were also exempt, but were generally looked upon with contempt.
This was all based on the Magna Carta, which had similar firearm requirements.
As learned as these scholars were, they still stupidly let no term limits for Congress through.
Nor the President. This was a new concept altogether.
The 2nd Amendment specifically had firearms in mind for self defense though. It was then the relied upon self defense of the time and continues to be today.
Yes... However firearms are a type of armament. And the language of the time was arms to mean armaments. We see this happen often with words throughout history and even titles. The President of the United States was only recently shortened to POTUS. Self portrait is now selfie. Catalytic converter is often referred to as a cat and so on.
This is true for all the following: a rock, a stick, a toothpick, sand, dirt, shovel, pick ax, nail file. etc., etc. etc.
Notwithstanding, the founders specifically had firearms in mind for self defense. There's no ambiguity here. This has been understood for over 200 years.
Good point, and straight to the heart of the matter.
The 2A also has nothing to do with rights. It is meant to bind the powers of government, not grant a right to the people. It was a message from the people to stay away from their weapons.
Confiscating weapons was what started the war of independence after all.
"The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Does not grant a right. It binds the hands of government.
Bulls eye. The Bill of Rights provides us the acknowledgement of our founding fathers that these Rights come not from government, but the Creator Himself.
Our Bill of Rights has its roots in Saint Thomas Aquinas Natural Laws, which is linked to the writings of the Greeks and their acknowledgement of how man is incontrovertibly subject to the Nature's Laws and survival. Each living man has an absolute Right for his survival.
"Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." -Tench Coxe
https://ravensrook.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/every-other-terrible-implement/
You can say it, but without any counter point, it's just words with no meaning...