DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**hrthwhr** · 10-20-2005, 11:40 PM

However, one thing I will add here is that the 2nd Amendment clearly and explicitly gives the Federal government the right to regulate that militia. And if the right to bear arms is understood or interpreted under this right of a well armed militia, then the Federal government clearly has constitutional authority to regulate those same arms. It doesn't seem logical to interpret one without the other.

Militia and citizens right to bear arms are two separate issues. The writing style of the day grouped them into one sentence, but the comma separates them completely.

But the most forceful argument for the right to bear arms is not within the second amendment at all. It is within the Constitution itself, since it enumerates what powers the People grant to the Government, not what Rights the People have. Therefore the People have all rights unless specifically constrained by the text of the Constitution, or in laws created within the framework. The Bill of Rights were passed merely to placate those who wanted more assurances. The Court has consistently held this view.

The problem I have with this thread is that it tries to do too much. An adequate response to all the issues raised would take too long and expand into too many areas, and thus be too lengthy or untenable. I suggest that you take one issue and run with it, and save the rest for later.

10-20-2005, 11:40 PM	#11
hrthwhr Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 368 Senior Member	However, one thing I will add here is that the 2nd Amendment clearly and explicitly gives the Federal government the right to regulate that militia. And if the right to bear arms is understood or interpreted under this right of a well armed militia, then the Federal government clearly has constitutional authority to regulate those same arms. It doesn't seem logical to interpret one without the other. Militia and citizens right to bear arms are two separate issues. The writing style of the day grouped them into one sentence, but the comma separates them completely. But the most forceful argument for the right to bear arms is not within the second amendment at all. It is within the Constitution itself, since it enumerates what powers the People grant to the Government, not what Rights the People have. Therefore the People have all rights unless specifically constrained by the text of the Constitution, or in laws created within the framework. The Bill of Rights were passed merely to placate those who wanted more assurances. The Court has consistently held this view. The problem I have with this thread is that it tries to do too much. An adequate response to all the issues raised would take too long and expand into too many areas, and thus be too lengthy or untenable. I suggest that you take one issue and run with it, and save the rest for later.
	Quote