Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Supreme Court Ruling on guns:
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="tomikawaTT"][quote user="Bucyrus"] <p>Part of the justification of gun ownership is self-defense or personal protection. I think the framers were simply referring to that justification in a collective (it takes a village) sense when they mentioned a well-regulated militia.</p><p>To me, the contention that the framers were allowing a right to bear arms to those in the army seems ridiculous. That is because the tradition of organized militias has been that if they want you in one, they grab you, put you in the militia, and put a gun in your hand whether you want to participate or not. You don't have a right to refuse a gun in an organized militia, so why would you need a right to have a gun in an organized militia?</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>I think that we're overlooking some very basic things.</p><p>Back when the Bill of Rights was passed:</p><ul><li>The United States didn't have a standing Army.</li><li>The 'Militia' was the physically fit male population between 16 and 60.</li><li>There were no armories full of weapons and ammunition waiting for the Militia.</li><li>Just about everybody outside of the few large Eastern cities needed to be ready at all times to repel <strike>Indian</strike> Native American attack. You couldn't call 911!</li><li>Last, but hardly least, the Founding Fathers remembered that several of the British Colonial Governors had tried, unsuccessfully, to disarm the Colonists. Had they succeeded, the Revolution might not have happened.</li></ul><p>The Second Amendment isn't about a criminal's right to the tools of his trade. It's about the law-abiding citizen's right to individually and collectively protect his person, his property and his freedom.</p><p>Chuck</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>Just to be clear, what I meant by what I said is in agreement with your position. I realize there was no standing army back then and what they meant by militia. I only use the example of army to refute the common assertion by the anti-gun-rights faction that when the founding fathers cited the need for a militia, they were referring to a right to bear arms in what was then like our present national guard. I don't think that is what they meant, because it does not make sense. That would be like establishing a punishment for a crime, and then enshrining a right to that punishment if you commit the crime. </p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy