- Messages
- 4,251
- Reactions
- 1,850
This idea that the Federal gov. can mandate, or better yet -- "infringe" on our secured and inalienable right to keep and bear arms, just because a majority may want it (very debatable) rubs me wrong and it should everyone else too. That right does not come from the Federal gov. so it cannot be taken by the Federal gov. If the ratifiers had certain restrictions in mind that were allowable, they would have placed them there.
So far as I read the 2nd it does not say:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by a majority of citizens in a popular vote.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by a majority in both houses of Congress.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by federal laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by reasonable regulations.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons that weren't envisioned at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
I have no problem with a gun restriction debate, as long as it is on a constitutional basis.
Tell that to the county, city and state where I live. As far as I can tell, many states do not believe in God given rights. If they did then they would not put rules and regulations on them.
"You have rights but they need to be regulated. No right is freedom to do what you want." A quote from someone I think is wrong.