Quote:
Originally posted by archer
"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."
finally a court has the guts to read the second amendment the way it was meant to be read.
the text is crystal clear, the constitution is speaking of collective rights: of a state's right to defend itself: ie national guards etc. it is not speaking of an individual.
the clause has been twisted from it true meaning.
no single individual has the right to bear arms outside an authorized collective effort.
|
oh, how the liberal myth survives.
The bill of rights was written to protect the rights of individuals. period.
Anyone who refutes this is uninformed or has an agenda.
*ALL* of the amendments protect the rights of the individual. Pretending that the second amendment is different from the others just makes you look silly.
The original intent of the second amendment was to insure that there would always be "minutemen" available to protect themselves and their nieghbors from attack both foriegn and domestic.
(keep in mind that the revolution was just won by citizens picking up arms to throw of the english yoke)
Now, if you want to argue that thats not needed today, I'd call that an argument worthy of discussion. Pretending the 2nd amendment *isn't* about individual rights deminishes the pretender.
