The pro-gun folks love the Second Amendment, but you only ever hear them quoting the second half of it...you know, the part that says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Here's the whole thing:
The "right to keep and bear arms" part is vigorously fought for by groups like the NRA. I haven't heard a peep from the NRA about "well-regulated militias", though. It seems like the second half of the amendment is the "important part", while the first gets ignored. If we're following the Constitution here, shouldn't we follow all of it? Why aren't we using the Second Amendment as it was intended...as a means of arming citizen militias?
Quote:
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. |
The "right to keep and bear arms" part is vigorously fought for by groups like the NRA. I haven't heard a peep from the NRA about "well-regulated militias", though. It seems like the second half of the amendment is the "important part", while the first gets ignored. If we're following the Constitution here, shouldn't we follow all of it? Why aren't we using the Second Amendment as it was intended...as a means of arming citizen militias?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1G5IFdo
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire