@freemo right on. And before someone posts the "well regulated militia" argument, the militia at that time was the able-bodied male population. The 2a is definitely about the general public being armed and trained to repel either invasion or tyranny.
If the Federal government wanted to take the 2a seriously, they should be expanding the Civilian Marksmanship Program and offering free rifle lessons in high school.
@mike805 @freemo even if that were the case (it's isn't), you still have them "well-regulated" bit. Also, if the first part is to be taken for sacred, by your interpretation then only white men should have the right to bear arms?
The reification of an old document is a choice. One that is killing our children. Guns are the number one cause of death for children in America! Our life expectancy is way lower than all other advanced countries. Choosing this mortality for an interpretation of an old text is the definition of a death cult. One that is imposed on a majority of Americans who do not want it.
@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha
Bingo! You've got it!
Nobody wants to ban guns and nobody is coming for your guns. We just want to be sure that they don't end up as easily in the hands of a person that may start shooting indiscriminately in a school or other public place.
Even the founding fathers had some "well-regulated" criteria for who can and who cannot have a gun (white men with wigs yes, founding mothers and people with slightly dark complexion no).
The criteria arguably changed from then but the principle stands.
People have literally banned entire classes of guns such as handguns and imaginary "assault rifles".. not only arr thry coming for our guns, they are explicit about it...
@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha
Also no, there was never a well regulated criteria. That was an exemplarly clause as is explicitly stated, not a qulifying clause. Thry have been quotes countless time saying as much.
Yes, they don't explicitly state in the constitution who is and who isn't allowed to have guns, but I think it is pretty clear what would have happened if one of their slaves went for a gun.
You can't run a society without qualifying clauses.
@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha
Surr thry do, thry explicitly state the right shall not be infringed. Pretty clear that means all people.
It was not narrow, at least not in the constitution. the founding fathers made rather clear, at least many of them, that they wanted many to have equal rights but sadly the states in many cases, and people, just werent ready for it. So it had to be explicitly added as an amendment.
The quotes from the founding fathers during and after the writing of the constitution was quite clear that their definition of People was in fact extraordinarily broad for the time period and very much they wanted to include blacks in that definition (and likely other minorities).
Some quotes:
“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” – George Washington, 1786
"Article the Sixth. There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude in the said territory" -- James Madison, at the constitutional convention address prohibition against slavery as an article.
“We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” – James Madison (also at the constitutional convention)
“Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country." -- George Mason
“The omitting the Word [slave] will be regarded as an Endeavor to conceal a principle of which we are ashamed.” – John Dickinson, draft of notes for a speech at the Constitutional Convention
“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in…abhorrence.” – John Adams, 1819