Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?????
It's not infringed at all if you can still obtain firearms...... if you're going to use the word "Infringed" in such a way to allow a complete open door to obtain every kind of weapon designed for killing that's out there, then why not let people get tanks, RPG's, fighter jets and nuclear bombs?
They're all forms of "Arms" and since the amendment doesn't specifically state "Firearms" but just "Arms"..... why is there "Infringements" on obtaining any of the above?
And please don't give me that argument "Everybody should know that Arms means "Firearms" because that's what everybody used back when the amendment was made"
because that was already debated to death a while back..... it's funny how people will spout off what is specifically said in the amendment, but when it comes to "Arms" and what that specifically means, suddenly we're supposed to assume it means Firearms and only firearms.
The Americans, as so clearly laid out in the Second Amendment, have the right to own and carry weapons that are roughly equivalent to the personal arms carried by their soldiers........as the citizenry IS the militia.
So start handing out RPGs, Grenades, land mines and C4..... allow people to own flamethrowers, sniper rifles, M-60's and mortars.
If it was "Clearly Laid Out" then these debates wouldn't exist, would they?
If it was clearly laid out, then how come the amendment doesn't state "Firearms" but just "Arms?"..... why doesn't the amendment clearly lay out what you just said about the equivalent of personal arms carried by the nation's soldiers?
"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."
^ Sorry, that's about as clear a snot from a dog with a cold...... Regulated can mean many things....... Arms can mean many different forms of weapon..... and as we discussed many times before, they speak of a militia being needed for the security of a free state and therefore the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed...... yet where's the requirement of these people with their firearms to join this regulated militia?
After all, if nobody is willing to join this militia and use their "Arms" to ensure the security of the free state, then that so-called militia isn't very regulated is it?
I always found it funny how people will cling onto the last half of this amendment and only use the first part as a defence of the last half..... yet never use the last half as a defence for the first half which is the more important and more descriptive part of the whole thing.
There's no point in having everybody owning firearms if they're not going to actually use them to defend this "Free State"..... or are you going to argue that being able to own firearms of any kind is proof of a "Free State" even though there is no obligation for all these people with firearms to actually sign up for their local militia?
As you know, I'm not against firearms, be that owning or using (under certain circumstances)..... but me being the technical person that I am when reading things, this whole 2nd Amendment thing is completely full of holes and in no way is it "Clearly Laid Out."
The only thing that's "Clearly Laid Out" is what's laid out within a person's own subjective interpretation of what the words are supposed to mean..... thus what makes sense to you as being clearly laid out, isn't the same thing someone else will interpret when reading the above words....
..... and until those words are specifically laid out properly and in detail to what is supposed to be meant in the first place, the final conclusions of what this amendment means will remain up in the air and many others beyond just you and I will continue debating this topic like it has been debated for years past.
But nobody will touch the 2nd amendment, either by modifying it or simply clearing up what it means, because as it stands now, both sides of the argument can use the current wording to suit their own objectives, can further continue to cloud the whole topic, allow nothing to really change and of course, nobody wants to tweak it to make actual sense because anybody doing so would be seen as the bad guy.
Anyways, my main point is that no, it's not clearly stated about anything being equivalent to the military in regards to citizens and their "Arms" and the so-called "Militia" nobody seems obligated in joining up to...... and you saying it's clear, simply doesn't make it so.