Quote:
Originally Posted by Vellatri
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I addressed this already.
Of course not. I never ignored it. I used it to justify the obvious fact that "arms" actually means "arms." That the prefatory clause outlines the reason for the operational clause, it is the "why" not the "what". It explains that an armed and well-trained populace is necessary to keep the state free. This clearly shows that the people are supposed to have access to the same arms as the government, which is of, by, and for the people.
|
Who is the populace supposed to be trained by? Wouldn't that mean any
Jim Bob Bo Henry with a gun is supposed to receive training? If so by whom and what for?
Of course not. The Constitution doesn't say any such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vellatri
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Until we do, the people have the legal right to any arms they please.
|
But they don't. Why is that? And
IF they did...why aren't they fighting for that...since their rights have already been infringed?