Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 998506" data-attributes="member: 17969">The point being, SOBER, that the "intent" of the 2nd amendment was for controlling state militias, and NOT private ownership, the militia act of 1792 was a further clarification of the 2nd amendment and it was pretty plain and simple.It was repealed in 1903 when the NATIONAL GUARD was created to fill the role of the state militias and it also ended the need for the townspeople to harbor weapons in defense of the state.While the supreme court currently allows guns for private ownership, this isnt what the founders intended, its only what the courts interpret based on political reasoning.On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[SUP][82][/SUP] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28. On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. This clearly spells out the intention of the second amendment and there is no mention of private gun ownership in this sentence.  The preamble says "a well regulated militia," and everything after that first comma is speaking about the "well regulated militia".You cant extrapolate something between commas and give it a separate meaning.It was changed later to:By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[SUP][86][/SUP] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Then it was changed again:The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Lastly, it was finally changed to appear like this:The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":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. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.Now, whether or not the supreme court agrees with you or not isnt he issue.  The issue is whether guns are really a necessity in this country.  I dont believe the founders would have sat back and watched mass murder after mass murder and allowed the right to possess guns to remain.As weapons are becoming more and more powerful, so are the degree of the mass murders.  If a person supports the rights to openly buy guns, then you are partly responsible for every mass murder in this country.As for this shooter, I blame him for the first 15 rounds that the AR 15 fired, and then blame the gun seller and the gun maker along with the manufacturer of the drum magazine for every shot fired afterwards.There is NO PURPOSE for a drum magazine in the public arena and that SALE alone should cost the retail gun store owner his license to sell guns.There is NO PRACTICAL purpose to own a drum magazine outside of the military.  The sale of the drum magazine should have been the largest RED FLAG raised and the police should have been notified or the sale cancelled.Irresponsible gun dealers dont care about human life, they care solely about money and profits.  They could care less where or when the guns they sell kill people.PeaceTOS</blockquote>

Verification