Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Ted Cruz: New Gun Control Proposals 'Unconstitutional' [View all]Igel
(35,300 posts)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.
Strictly speaking, it's not the firearms that are being regulated.
It's the militia. The people.
So how can you have "well regulated" without people control? After all, wouldn't a poorly regulated militia be a threat to the security of a free state?
And that means that the Founders really considered the population to be a threat. Just like the British did, in restricting gun possession to landed gentry and those people tightly controlled in the military.
"A militia that's subject to a lot of regulations and limitations being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Or let's say it means gun control.
"A militia with tightly controlled and regulated arms being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I guess if you're really afraid of the common man and given the masses any sort of power it makes sense. In a sort of strange landed-gentry, elitist sort of way.
Esp. since the militia wasn't just the masses, but free white males. Who knew that the founding fathers so feared free white males?
Doesn't jibe with the rest of the Constitution, does it? Perhaps you should figure out what "well-regulated" meant at the time and come up with a coherent parsing of the sentence. There is one. Or maybe the Congress had a bit too much rum in them when they wrote this. (And then couldn't the same be said about their state of inebriation for other amendments?)