Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1123383" data-attributes="member: 17969">Sober, like TRP, you want to only extrapolate one "fragment" of a larger sentence and give it a separate meaning from its intended meaning.  As I said and its clear, there is NO STAND ALONE sentence or wording that is self defining in the second amendment that says "THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE....."You are relying on a fragment and disregarding the entire sentence.At the time, the USA had NO STANDING ARMY and the "people" were the standing army as defined by the MILITIA ACT of 1792.  With a military structure in place given the Militia act of 1792, the "PEOPLE" are now classified in a military sense.  This cannot be ignored, despite every effort by gun owners to do so.The second amendment does In FACT say specifically that the MILITIA MEMBERS are the persons to keep and bear arms.A well regulated Militia, ( comma ) means everything after the comma applies to the militia.  IF the founders wanted an armed populace, it would have stated so in a self defining stand alone sentence.But, that's not what the founders wanted.   As I keep saying, there was NO WAY the founders wanted ALL americans or people in the USA at the time to own weapons, which is why in the militia act of 1792, it was declared that only FREE WHITE MEN could possess a gun or be in the militia.Mexicans, Blacks, Asians  and such could not be in the militia.Further, blacks especially could not possess a gun for any reason, so , to say that the founders wanted an armed populace is not accurate.  The founders needed a standing army that could be controlled, and the peoples militia was the only way to get that done.There were several militia acts passed over the years following the founding of the country, up to the point in 1903 where the militia acts were repealed and replaced by the National Guard.You are a part of a group of people who want to ignore the commas because it allows you to fragment the intention into meaning something you want it to mean.  "I" on the other hand, take the second amendment as it reads.I read it to mean the "people" of each state at the time make up the militia, that militia has a right to arm itself and protect the state, and that militia has to be regulated with officers and privates and terms of duty, and further, the president of the United States could call up that militia at any time.I read it to mean that given the fact that the USA had no standing army for defense, it was necessary to form a peoples army.Today, this has no value in America.We have a complete military complex and there is NO need for an armed populace to protect anything.  If we want to discuss private protection, then that's a completely different story.This is why I say the second amendment doesn't apply today and should be repealed.  There should be a revision to the second amendment to define what self protection can mean.  If it is to include guns, then it needs to be specified and regulated.This country is full of kooks, and it seems that the gun populace has the majority of them within their ranks.  Full mental evaluations should be a part of ANY new gun controls.Disqualifiers should be in place and ANYONE who has any kind of mental disorder or mood disorder requiring prescription drugs should be disqualified from owning a gun.The founders in no way, wanted an America where over 30000 of its citizens are killed every year with guns.  There is no way the founders wanted to see schools shot up with semi automatic military style weapons.To believe that the founders intended America to be like it is today with respect to guns is laughable at best.PeaceTOS</blockquote>

Verification