Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Samueul:
[b] It doesn't say the "right of the State to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does it? How can the people defend themselves from a tyrannical government if they have to have permission from the government to have weapons? Can a State government not be tyrannical? What if the Fed is oppressing the people and the state and local governments agree with the Fed? What do the people do then?

No the SA makes it clear that a state has the right to keep a well regulated militia and the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
Your statements seem to indicate that to you it doesn't mean what it says, it means what you want it to mean. You have to read it in the context of the time in which it was written.

The whole point of a militia being "necessary to the security of a free State" was that back then, it could be days or maybe even weeks before a state even got the word to Washington that somebody was invading or otherwise making trouble, and days or weeks after that before the Feds could send the Army to help. That's why they needed a militia to begin with.

If you have a logical basis for what you're arguing, let's hear it.[/b]
How can it not mean what it says? Once again,
Quote:
It doesn't say the "right of the State to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does it? How can the people defend themselves from a tyrannical government if they have to have permission from the government to have weapons? Can a State government not be tyrannical? What if the Fed is oppressing the people and the state and local governments agree with the Fed? What do the people do then?
I highly doubt that when forming the blueprint for our country the drafters of the Constitution only meant it to apply for a few years or so.

See Blue, you doing the same thing that you are accusing me of doing. If you believe the SA should be taken in context with the time it was written then the entire Constitution should too.

Read many portions of the Constitution and you could argue that the "People" haven't been given any specific rights based on interpretation, or that there was "reason at the time" for such things but they no longer apply today. Do we really want to start doing that?
_________________________
Must stay away from political/religious debates. Must stay away........