You remind me a bit of David Hume arguing with great force against the existence of God, then putting a disclaimer at the end that that was never your intention. "Just laying out the arguments."
The REALITY is that certain people BELIEVE that the 2nd amendment "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." GIVES them the RIGHT to UNREGULATED ARMS.
1. A well regulated Militia for the security of a free State.
2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
UNREGULATED ARMS in the modern era is insane, irresponsible, and reckless. What does the term KEEP & BEAR ARMS mean in the modern era?
REGULATED ARMS without clearly defined terms, boundaries, and protections is insane, irresponsible, and reckless, as the state can impose endless red tape, laws, locationally inconsistent rules, and gun ownership burdens that can effectively "deny the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".
Arguably the supermajority of Americans know ARMS need to be reasonable & justifiable from a utilitarian perspective. For example they make sense for personal and community self-defense, as a domestic totalitarianism deterrent, and as a foreign invasion deterrent.
- Arguably the supermajority understands the citizen state militia concept with regards to their STATE should be much better ARMED than the individual.
- The supermajority understands the individual must be reasonably ARMED for self-defense, and community defense (to much lesser extend than the state).
- The supermajority also understands that the FEDERAL Level or NATIONAL level needs to maintain ARMS at a level higher than the States, and at or superior to potential aggressor nations.
Constitutional Rights within a Constitutional Democratic Republic are CONTINGENT upon the persistent SUPPORT of the SUPERMAJORITY. This being said, the GUN CONTROL debate should really be about clearly defining what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" really means in a way the will be FOREVER supportable by the Supermajority.
You remind me a bit of David Hume arguing with great force against the existence of God, then putting a disclaimer at the end that that was never your intention. "Just laying out the arguments."
The REALITY is that certain people BELIEVE that the 2nd amendment "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." GIVES them the RIGHT to UNREGULATED ARMS.
1. A well regulated Militia for the security of a free State.
2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
UNREGULATED ARMS in the modern era is insane, irresponsible, and reckless. What does the term KEEP & BEAR ARMS mean in the modern era?
REGULATED ARMS without clearly defined terms, boundaries, and protections is insane, irresponsible, and reckless, as the state can impose endless red tape, laws, locationally inconsistent rules, and gun ownership burdens that can effectively "deny the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".
Arguably the supermajority of Americans know ARMS need to be reasonable & justifiable from a utilitarian perspective. For example they make sense for personal and community self-defense, as a domestic totalitarianism deterrent, and as a foreign invasion deterrent.
- Arguably the supermajority understands the citizen state militia concept with regards to their STATE should be much better ARMED than the individual.
- The supermajority understands the individual must be reasonably ARMED for self-defense, and community defense (to much lesser extend than the state).
- The supermajority also understands that the FEDERAL Level or NATIONAL level needs to maintain ARMS at a level higher than the States, and at or superior to potential aggressor nations.
Constitutional Rights within a Constitutional Democratic Republic are CONTINGENT upon the persistent SUPPORT of the SUPERMAJORITY. This being said, the GUN CONTROL debate should really be about clearly defining what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" really means in a way the will be FOREVER supportable by the Supermajority.