{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/17/2013 3:43:30 PM
5
I find it strange how that sentence has been taken to mean that US citizens have a right to bear as many arms as they want when it's really only talking about their ability to maintain a militia.
English
-
They didn't want a corrupt and unjust armed government to take control of the country. That's why the amendment was written in the first place.
-
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To have a militia, you need to have guns to protect yourself; in this day and age, and back then.
-
Edited by The Dark Hadou: 1/17/2013 4:06:25 PMUnfortunately "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is not the whole of the sentence... The application of the US constitution isn't like some people's way of responding to posts on BNet whereby they just choose which words to pay attention to. The entire sentence can basically be read as: [i]"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed to the extent that they are able to form a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state."[/i] so the right to bear arms, from the wording in the constitution, is only granted to the extent needed to form a militia not a a blanket right giving people permission to own as many guns as they damn well like.
-
So in a time of crisis, whether it's domestic or foreign, and the enemy invades your turf, are you going to be able to fight, or wish you had a gun? It's about preparing for the worst case scenario if it happens, because it could happen any day. We have the right to bear arms for a reason, regardless if we're part of an official town militia or not.
-
But nowadays guns aren't used to form a militia to overrun a corrupt government.
