- Joined
- May 12, 2015
- Messages
- 14,117
- Reaction score
- 4,310
I agree felons who weren't violent shouldn't have their right to arms revoked. Do you see all bans as being unconstitutional? Because that would include doing away with the ones that ban say a 6 year old from carrying a weapon to a birthday party's to chuck-e-cheese or someone with severe mental health issues carrying.
Also curious how you interrupt the "well regulated" description of gun owners that is opening sentence of the 2nd. It's obviously calling not just for regulation but strong at that, what is that suppose to look like? I don't personally don't see much strong regulations at the federal level.
I think the opening 4 words allow some bans. Your right to bear arms as part of an already well regulated group is to not to be infringed is how I interrupt it. I know others ignore the first sentence and believe simply your right to bear arms in any form is not to be infringed. I just don't think the founders would include a description for strong regulation first thing if they didn't want it.
The idea of the time was that an unregulated civilian militia should be allowed. Meaning that we would have a weak military and federal government and a strong armed civilian population. At the time of the writing, people were literally allowed to own cannons, naval ships, and other things like that without issue. Well-regulated means that the civilians have control over the militia and how it's regulated. It doesn't mean government oversight.
I think any law that violates what is written in the constitution is illegal and should be unenforceable. If they want to update gun laws to reflect our lifestyle today, that's fine. I just think it should go through the correct process and be a Constitutional amendment. I don't think the government should be allowed to willy-nilly take away our Constitutional rights. Those are the foundation of this country.