One of the arguments in favor of unrestricted ownership of firearms in the united states is that the 2nd Ammendment guarantees gun ownership as an inalienable right for all Americans. It doesn’t of course. Depending on which version of the Contitution you look in, it says this:<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
or<\/p>\n
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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What it really means is what the courts have said, and that is largely a set of 20th century case law leading to the “rights to bear arms” concept. But what it REALLY REALLY means, with respect to having an armed populous, is this:<\/p>\n
…Sure, political and bureaucratic takeover isn’t as sexy as a cold, sleek piece of metal that makes noise and holes, but it’s the reality. Eric Rudolph didn’t change anything for any length of time except his own address. Same with the mountain militias. Same with every idiot who ever shot a government agent performing their duties….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nWhich you will find in its fully expanded form here.<\/a> Worth the read, go there please.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"One of the arguments in favor of unrestricted ownership of firearms in the united states is that the 2nd Ammendment guarantees gun ownership as an inalienable right for all Americans. It doesn’t of course. Depending on which version of the Contitution you look in, it says this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the … Continue reading The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Relevant<\/span>