Quote:
Originally Posted by Neptunus Rex
I've been reading this thread litely. By that I mean I simply do not have the time to read the entire on going discussion and all the points raised. Earlier I posted the wording of the 2nd amendmend and my interpretation of each of it's points but here I'm simply going to address the last four words....
shall not be infringed.
The framers of the Constitution were very adament that the Fed Gov't not have the authority to disarm the population. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with national defense outside that the states have the right to form their own militia's. This was the genesis for the creation of the National Guard.
It's not a question of someone taking my guns. The issue is that because the vocal opinion is that something needs to be done, the fear is the Fed Gov't is/will attempt to grab authority do do so when the Constitution specifically denies them this authority.
And to the SUBSIM members who are citizens of other nations, this is a general discussion forum and this subject is certainly worthy of it and I respect your opinions, I do take umbridge to someone demanding, or even suggesting, that I (or Americans) give up something that really does not affect them.
|
Well said and if anyone thinks that the National Guard is a replacement for the Militia I invite them to note that their uniforms say "
US Army" not "XXXX State Militia". The NG is created and maintained under Congresses right to raise standing armies.