Just thinking upon some Constitutional stuff…and how the “gun control” advocat’s brain typically works..
United States vs. Miller the court (1939) – this is where the courts deemed a shortened shotgun under 18″ had no use in a milita not being considered a military type arm. Ironic, that the debate today is “no military arms”. That’s right, in 1939 you couldn’t own it because the military didn’t use it. Now you can’t own it because the military owns it.
The point being, gun control lunatics will leap on ANY argument or reason, no matter how shallow, to support banning and disarming us.
Early proposal of the 2nd Amendment. The provision of noteworthiness being the exception for religious pacifists. And a statement to the need of an armed militia to keep the nation free.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
“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.”
Even in it’s shortened and reduced version. And I wager the ‘religiously scrupulous’ clause was nixed by the assumption the 1st Amendment would provide that protection.
But a lot of people comment on “hunting”, we’re not going to take away your hunting rifle. But what is the primary purpose of the second amendment in regards to the nation. It’s sure not hunting. It is the security of a “free state”. Catch that, free state….free….(just in case you missed it).
“Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack”
I also found this of interest. The fact that we had a law in 1792 pretty much requiring that we be armed, or able to provision ourselves arms. Note “a sufficient bayonet”. Too bad this law wasn’t still on the books. It’d put a conundrum on the AWB. But one should be able to make a good case that a bayonet mount is constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And I think this could be a case to pursue the overturning of any AWB should one pass.
That said, I do not really support laws that forces one to muster or be required to register so that you may be selectively selected to serve. 😉
“The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”. In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”
I am constantly trying to explain that this clause means trained/discipline/skilled/armed, as opposed to bound by laws.
You can read more at one of our favorite sites, Wikipedia