I'd assume that this is an indirect accusation of my own dangerously traitorous position (somehow...)Originally Posted by Vuk
I must disappoint you with knowledge that I am no citizen of the USA...yet. Feel free to deport me, however.
An intention. Note the wording: "well regulated" and "militia." The stated intention being that this is "necessary to the security of a free State." "Necessary;" "security of;" "a free State." Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.Originally Posted by Vuk
Who are "the People?" Why "keep and bear arms"? What does it mean to be "infringed"?Originally Posted by Vuk
Moreover, the first phrase does not match the second very well in a modern context. Whereas armies of old often have their own soldiers providing the equipment, especially in a less regularized force as the early American military, such is not the case to the modern military.
Does that nullify the right, or does it not?
Obviously, I am not taking sides -- merely pointing out some the countless questions that can be immediately derived to challenge one certain position of what this particularly Amendment means.
In other words, I'm urging debaters in this thread to acquire support for their positions by other means than the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Please lay off the insults. I do not believe the moderators will appreciate having to go back to edit your posts to remove the profanity. Moreover, you will get the thread closed. I still see a few debates going (or have potential to go) and do not like them to be interrupted and stopped merely because of such distractions as this.Originally Posted by Vuk
Bookmarks