BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

BAR[_2_]

In article , lid says...

On 4/2/2012 4:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote:
On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote:

The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to
defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd
amendment?

It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense.

"It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along.

It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the
second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not
making that up.

"..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do
you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people"
explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
has a specific and direct meaning.

If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not
have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people.

I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there
would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in
the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state".

It is there to ensure that the states can defend themselves and
individuals can defend themselves.