The GUN Forum

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our
community around the world.

home Forums – The GUN Forum Countering the Well-Regulated Militia Fallacy: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Gun.

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #719912 Reply

    Robert
    Participant

    Bill of Rights were written to limit the powers of the government. Anti-federalist wanted it written in the constitution that the government could not make laws against these inalienable rights. All 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. No rights written in the Bill of Rights are given to a special class of Citizen. The 4th applies to you whether you own the land or you are just renting. The first applies to you whether or not you work for a formal news agency. Thus it makes perfect sense that the second applies to you even if you are not part of a formal militia.
    So the writers and congressmen voting on each amendment of the Bill of Rights understood these were individual rights that were protecting the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.
    Now we can dissect the 2nd amendment. Contextually western governments did not allow civilians to arm themselves or if they did it was under special circumstances. You basically had to ask for the PRIVILEGE to own weapons. The point of the 2nd is that the anti-federalists believed that you didn’t need to ask you government to keep and bear arms. Further so they believed that it was actually the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And even more that the people being able to keep and bear arms would create a stronger state one that would be less likely to fall into tyranny (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State).
    And they use the term Militia. This is also an important differentiator. Why would the militia (A civilian group of armed individuals) be necessary for the security of a free state? I mean did they help us in the revolution sure, but they hardly were the deciding factor in the american revolution. The standing armies won the war with the help of french supplies, training, and navy. The militia by definition aren’t standing armies. After a battle a militia man could go home and tend to his fields. Military men could not they signed a contract and desertion was punishable by DEATH!
    So why use the word militia, why not say something like the Military? Because obviously the 2nd is about civilians. And they believe the people/civilians have the right to keep and bear arms ( the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
    It is inherent by the context and the written word itself that the Bill of Rights are all individual rights. And that the 2nd is about the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms (and the anti-federalist thought that was a good thing).

Reply to: Robert
Your information:

Cancel
Start of Discussion
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now