Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980
"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"
That is what the Second Amendment says, clear, plain, and simple. The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.Yes, it mentions militia but if you do some reading, you will find the founders also sought to facilitate the natural right of self preservation/defense, especially against tyranny, which they had lived under.They knew the nature of man, the nature of government, was to seek more and more power over time and diminish liberty.That is the spirit and purpose behind the second amendment and whole bill of rights, that is spelled out rather clearly in the above quoted line! To keep government at bay and protect the Republic.Sure, they could not imagine we would have such weaponry but they did not mention muskets or cannon etc because they knew things would advance and citizens should have proper weapons to guard against tyranny and protect one's life, liberty, and property.
The Heller decision says there is a "pre-existing right codified" in the Second Amendment which "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" Cruikshank was wrong and does not apply thanks to Heller, period.Quoting that decision, is a waste of time.
Quoting gun laws in Finland is absurd, they DO NOT apply, Finland is not the US, it has no value, no basis here in the US, the end.
|