How did you know my wife is Indian?
Most militia members at the time were required to purchase their own supplies, unless they were on an active campaign as bullet sponges.
I personally believe the founding fathers put that prefatory clause in the 2A for two reasons. One was, as you stated, to express how important it is to have an armed and organized citizenry to resist potential threats both foreign and domestic. The other was to sway those voting on ratifying the 2A, who might be reluctant about having an armed citizenry capable of standing up to their authority, with an argument that was hard to vote against for people representing a new nation that just utilized a militia to help secure its creation.
But the active clause is that THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. The prefatory clause is just one very good example of why they have that right. But not the only one as people here had the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves and their families long before this nation was created. That prefatory clause does not restrict the right of the people to special circumstances. In fact there are no qualifiers to the right to keep and bear arms other than that it shall not be infringed.
[quote=“Ouade5, post:21, topic:89523, full:true”]
[quote=“Robert1246, post:19, topic:89523”] @Robert1246
If your wife buys you a gun and she is an indian giver
@Ouade5 How did you know my wife is Indian?
this gave me a good belly laugh for the day.
thank you for that, I am going through some bad memories today. due to the the loss of some soldiers 31 years ago today.
Sorry for your loss. My point is the 2A is not credited for what it doesn’t say but for what it says. I should have said that from the beginning.
Are you referring to the barracks hit by the Scud in Daharan? I served with a Soldier that survived it. God bless their souls and their familes.
Indeed, they were, but I believe the founders used the word “regulated” rather than “supplied” or “provisioned” to express the basic idea that they did not want a Militia, armies or other agents of government to have a monopoly of arms and thus able to dominate an unarmed electorate. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas in McDonald v. City of Chicago described how former slaves in Reconstruction America were often disarmed while local militias – notably the KKK – terrorized these unarmed former slaves while local governments and law enforcement did nothing. The founders might argue that this is perhaps why all responsible citizens should possess an AR.
David Hogg’s assertion that you do not have a right to possess a gun unless you are in a militia should be recast as you have a duty to own a firearm.
Yes I do and No It has Nothing to do with any branch of the military.
yes, those and my fellow combat engineers
or several I will use that argument with the wife next time I purchase a gun.
I am so sorry brother. I served with a SGT that was in that attack. He became a crew chief in the Blackhawk. He was a great Soldier. He never spoke of the attack and we did not ask.
Stay frosty man. Memories both suck and are good, often all at the same time. Thank you for what you did for our Army and Republic.
thank you that help lift my spirits
You are a great troop, troop! . Once a Soldier, always a Soldier brother warrior.
I take the position that anyone who advocates taking away Civil Rights without due process of law or other unconstitutional means has declared themselves to be an “outlaw” in the Common Law sense of the word. They are outside the protection of the law. They have no right to trial by jury. They have no right to even a decent burial.
Wonder how that pillow business is working out…
I forgot about that
A note for hogeboy. You uave the right to speak but you have NO right to be listened to.
Important question: Who pays for your stupid appearances?
David thanks for your opinion on this, how about also giving me your opinion on disinfection byproducts dynamics, I’m sure you will be equally as versed in this as you are in the constitution and gun rights. Ill wait for you to enlighten me with more dribble!
Negative publicity is still publicity and publicity is not what we want to give someone that is anti-Second Amendment.