Why wouldn't it sound right? "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; but the fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State is not the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Makes perfect sense, actually.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." -Hamilton. Federalist 84. Good point, Alexander. There is no power granted to restrict the carrying of weapons by the people of the several states.
The states gave their union no power to restrict the acquisition, possession, or carrying of weapons by the people of the several states.
The several States have recourse to their own traditional police power in federal venues within their own State.
Okay, but I was talking about the general government. The states never gave the general government any power to restrict the acquisition, possession, or carrying of weapons by the people of the several states.
Because it's contradictory. If a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, than why are we talking about bearing arms if not to protect it?
Exactly, the states never gave their general government any power to restrict the acquisition, possession, or carrying of weapons by the people of the several states.
we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. muster the militia if necessary.
I don't think he is able to even understand the stuff he posts, since they are one liners that are often contradictory to other one liners he has posted. I know he doesn't appear to understand the arguments we make, even though they have been standards in the pro-rights advocacy for decades.
Of course, because that was never the intent of 2A. "Regulated" refers to better training of militias needed to supplement the standing army. But as 1812 revealed, even that was not good enough, which is why with the last Militia Act the National Guard was formed, thus making 2A irrelevant.
From what I remember, there were three points that concerned the framers: the right to bear arms in general, the use of state militias, and the need to keep the standing army small. They settled the matter through 2A, which protected the right to bear arms (because it's based on the natural right to defend oneself) and then used that to justify the formation of regulated militias. The intent of the latter is given in Art. 1 Sec. 8. The manner by which they would be formed is given in the Militia Acts. But like all natural rights, the right to bear arms may be abridged (i.e., limited for one reason or another), and that's determined by statutes and majority vote.
But the constitution gives congress no legislative authority to restrict the ability of the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms.
