re: interpretation of the second

K

KawKLR

New member
<CENTER><I>"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."</CENTER></I>

Let's say we give the anti's the interpretation they believe in. That this is intended for the military and police. If so, the statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The military has the right to keep and bear arms? Our police force has the right to keep and bear arms? Or, do the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms?

Incredible.
 
I've wondered about that too--they say in one breath that it's the right of the states to keep men under arms to fight back against the federal government, and that the body in question is now the National Guard. I'd like to see anyone order the National Guard to go against the feds and see what happens!

Besides, I have NEVER heard any anti explain the 10th Amendment, which states clearly that the rights not assigned to the federal government automatically revert to "the states respectively, or to the people." Obviously "the people" and the state are separate--even if common sense didn't demand that bit of logic, it's written out right there on the same damn page.
Has anyone here ever gotten an anti to explain this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top