Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 945640" data-attributes="member: 2189">I think before you do that you&#039;d have to establish if you are asking as in regards to what the men who wrote those words meant or what it means today in our modern context.&nbsp;&nbsp; We have a standing army which changes the nature of what the militia was then and what it is now but where this can become problematic is if the 2nd amendment is changeable by the fact that society has changed, does this mean the freedom of speech or religion are also qualified ideals and can in fact be heavily regulated? Even to the point of telling someone what religious dogma or doctrine is acceptable or even moreso require any said citizen that they must believe in a specific religious faith?&nbsp; If this is true, then Moreluck&#039;s hysteria about Sharia law may have some standing.&nbsp; As one who holds no such beliefs, I find that troubling but having come from belief, I&#039;d find it equally troubling if someone of faith was told they couldn&#039;t because a gov&#039;t entity determined for the betterment of society that no god existed and belief was illegal or prohibited.&nbsp; I do think that some atheists if given a chance would try something like that (and I&#039;d opposed the hell out of them too) so I&#039;d rather error on the side of caution and I&#039;d tread lightly when it comes to the bill of rights because of the repercussions that could be set by unintended legal precedence.&nbsp; Way to many self serving interests at play and not always do they have the people&#039;s best intent either!As for me, I&#039;d love to see a world where swords are beat into plowshares.As to the term &quot;well-regulated&quot; <a href="http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm" target="_blank">here </a>is one POV on the subject.&nbsp; And <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm" target="_blank">here </a>is a piece on the 2nd amendment from the University of Missouri at Kansas City Law School.&nbsp; I also believe the individual states or local jurisdictions were not prohibited from limiting firearms under the original Constitution but that the 14th amendment may have seriously changed that by creating a federal citizenship that did not exist before.&nbsp; An unintended consequence and a consequence both the NRA and gun control groups would use to full advantage of which I both find are out to set bad law.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 945640, member: 2189"] I think before you do that you'd have to establish if you are asking as in regards to what the men who wrote those words meant or what it means today in our modern context. We have a standing army which changes the nature of what the militia was then and what it is now but where this can become problematic is if the 2nd amendment is changeable by the fact that society has changed, does this mean the freedom of speech or religion are also qualified ideals and can in fact be heavily regulated? Even to the point of telling someone what religious dogma or doctrine is acceptable or even moreso require any said citizen that they must believe in a specific religious faith? If this is true, then Moreluck's hysteria about Sharia law may have some standing. As one who holds no such beliefs, I find that troubling but having come from belief, I'd find it equally troubling if someone of faith was told they couldn't because a gov't entity determined for the betterment of society that no god existed and belief was illegal or prohibited. I do think that some atheists if given a chance would try something like that (and I'd opposed the hell out of them too) so I'd rather error on the side of caution and I'd tread lightly when it comes to the bill of rights because of the repercussions that could be set by unintended legal precedence. Way to many self serving interests at play and not always do they have the people's best intent either! As for me, I'd love to see a world where swords are beat into plowshares. As to the term "well-regulated" [URL="http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm"][COLOR=#ff0000]here [/COLOR][/URL]is one POV on the subject. And [URL="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm"][COLOR=#ff0000]here [/COLOR][/URL]is a piece on the 2nd amendment from the University of Missouri at Kansas City Law School. I also believe the individual states or local jurisdictions were not prohibited from limiting firearms under the original Constitution but that the 14th amendment may have seriously changed that by creating a federal citizenship that did not exist before. An unintended consequence and a consequence both the NRA and gun control groups would use to full advantage of which I both find are out to set bad law. [/QUOTE]

Verification