The Second Amendment:
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.
Let's just get something clear, for the record. Guntards say the Second was written to address the citizens capability to defend against a tyranical government. I agree with that.
Guntards also say the Second wasn't wirtten with hunting in mind. I also agree with that.
What I haven't heard guntards say is that the Second was not written with personal self-defense in mind. In other words, there is no right to a gun for the purpose of self-defense. Anyone of a neutral position who reads the Second would have to agree with that too.
So the ONLY right granted by the Second is the right to arms for the purpose of fighting against our government.
Obviously, the words "well regulated militia" are in there too but they are just ignored by our current Supreme Court that operates under a specific pro-gun agenda. But that's not what this post is about. I'm specifically talking about the right to self-defense against non-governmental foes. Where is that right in our Constitution? It isn't in our Constitution. It's a Supreme Court decision from 2008 and 2010. They read the Constitution and then they ignored it's wording and just made things up. What does that tell you about our current Supreme Court?
Clearly, the Founders were talking about defending the "state", not the home or the person. Also for the record, I'm for allowing firearm ownership for the purpose of self-defense (at least in the home anyway). I'm just pointing out that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second is full of bull (and yes, by extension, I support that bull to some degree). But with Republicans continually going down the social warfare/pro-Oligarchy/Anglo-Christian/do nothing/hate politics rat hole I would expect the makeup of the Supreme Court to change back to liberal, which will likely result in the interpretation of the Second changing again. It's just a matter of time until the wording of the Second is taken seriously again.
IF the Founders had intended the gun ownership right to not be solely for the purpose of defending against tyrany then they could have worded the Second like this, unambiguous, clear, less open to interpretation:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But they didn't do that. Why didn't they? It stands out like a sore thumb.
Ironic isn't it, that the very people who yell so loudly about strict interpretation of the Constitution will so willfully ignore it's wording? Ironic indeed. Guntard logic? Inconsistent. Credibility? Close to zero.
Last edited by Gnhtsg; 02-19-2013 at 04:40 PM.