I'm beginning to think that gun ownership is more of a privilege than a right. The second amendment is pretty vague. It's clearly about malitias, but it says nothing about the right to bare arms for self defense. If people who say it's a right want to end the debate once and for all then they should pass their own amendment saying the people "have the right to bare arms for self defense
( ... )
I once followed a debate on what makes something a "right" and while there were quite a few pretty good phylosophical definitions there was no one correct answer. Of course there were plenty who wouldn't elaborate beyond "it just is, you terrorist!" even though it wasn't about gun rights`, that one was used as an example and glommed onto.
I think a right is something that is fundamentally necessary for one to live and to function in a society. By fundamental, I mean the violation of which has consequences we can all see. When freedom of thought, speech and the capacity for one to build a life for himself are violated (or perceived to be in danger) there's something fundamental to our psychology which is being violated. There are a lot of things we can learn to adjust to, other things from which we can't. Of the latter, I think what those things are in each individual is Universal.
It means to possess on one's person. To be equipped, furnished. I think the sense in which the word "bear" is used in the second amendment alludes to bearing arms in the sense of being equipped in order to have "a well regulated malitia". So much emphasis is put on the "bear arms" part but the whole malitia thing is kind of forgotten. What happens if we think about the malitia?
Malitias were the order of the day, and they were necessary at the time to keep the State free, from within or without. Gun ownership was taken for granted at the time, it was a daily part of life. I don't know if they were honestly thinking about gun control when they wrote the amendment. I don't know, I'm no historian. But the judges who interpret the amendment should do a lot of research in to this and not make rulings based upon their ideological interpretation.
The misunderstanding comes from what we refer to as a militia compared to what the people that wrote the US Constitution meant by the word militia. The militia as referred to by the US Constitution was generally understood to be all able bodied men of a certain age range. The founding fathers of the US also explicitly warned against raising a standing army as we have now. Some quotes for reference
( ... )
Fair enough. I don't claim to be any kind of authority. I have a lot I don't know. What I said is the best I can do with what I know. But I often get the feeling that those who act like an authority, including judges who rule on the second, don't know a whole lot about it either.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Malitias were the order of the day, and they were necessary at the time to keep the State free, from within or without. Gun ownership was taken for granted at the time, it was a daily part of life. I don't know if they were honestly thinking about gun control when they wrote the amendment. I don't know, I'm no historian. But the judges who interpret the amendment should do a lot of research in to this and not make rulings based upon their ideological interpretation.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment