- Sep 16, 2012
- 14,212
- 14,570
- 2,405
That is your opinion, it was not the status of the law pre-2008. Even Heller, states that the government still has the power to regulate certain firearms.That is your opinion. That was not the law until 2008.Wrong. The Supreme Court only applied the 2nd amendment to individuals in 2008.When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because we think Americans should go to church,” or set limits on the size of marches. There are no specific purposes, and no boundaries set on any of these rights.
However, when the Second Amendment was passed on the same day, it was laden with all too familiar language that describes exactly why citizens were to be permitted firearms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose. And while it may be possible, with enough convoluted statements and nonsense about the 18th century context of “well-regulated” or the definition of “militia,” to deliberately misunderstand the clear meaning of the this limit, the authors underlined the meaning in the Third Amendment.
How the Second Amendment comes from something that happened in the 2nd century BCE
When Congress approved the First Amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, they didn’t feel any need to describe why they were insisting on freedom of speech, publication, religion, and protest. They didn’t say “for the purposes of reporting the news,” or “because...m.dailykos.com
Protection of the elected government from both a standing army, and an insurrectionist mob.
Citizens were allowed to have guns for a specific purpose.
No, they were not.
The PEOPLE were given the right to keep and bear arms,
NOT the Militia
The Constitution 'applied' it much earlier.
" 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. "
That is your opinion.
no, that's a fact.
the law was based on what the 2nd actually said.