Usually not political on here but...
That darn 2nd Amendment seems to be getting interpreted again! I thought, what are the actually words. People have a messy habit of only saying part of a sentence, half of the idea to suit their particular need.
"Amendment II
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."
Hmmm, interesting. I always seem to hear "The Right to Bear Arms." That seems to be only a portion of the complete sentence. I'm always skeptical of people that only use part of an entire sentence. Sort of like when people use part of a bible verse to back their point. They sometimes forget why it was being said, when it was being said and then apply it to today's world (which doesn't always work well.)
Interpretation is a funny thing. I work in the world of contracts and it's all about interpretation. Believe me, you say one thing and the complete opposite can be done if interpreted as such.
I just ask everyone to take a close look at the full sentence. Remember what sort of country we were when it was written (started in 1776.)
"A well regulated Militia" Does the guy down the street belong to a "regulated Militia"...not that I know of.
"being necessary to the security of a free State". So the Militia's is only necessary when the security and freedom of a State is being threatened.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" Notice it is the people (lowercase) of the Militia (uppercase) that have the right (when "security of a free State" is being threatened) when necessary. When items are in uppercase, it makes them a proper noun. So here, the people would not mean the "People" as citizens, but "people" of the "Militia" (which being in uppercase would mean an official group...hmmm, do I hear "well regulated"?)
"shall not be infringed." Ok, so if it's necessary for a State to protect the security of it's freedom then it can develop a well regulated Militia and those Militia people have the right to have guns.
One last thought:
In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun. The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.
Hmmm, "Guns don't kill people, People do" Again, it's one of those phrases that I think is missing the FULL Sentence.
"Guns don't kill people, People do, using a gun"
"Amendment II
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."
Hmmm, interesting. I always seem to hear "The Right to Bear Arms." That seems to be only a portion of the complete sentence. I'm always skeptical of people that only use part of an entire sentence. Sort of like when people use part of a bible verse to back their point. They sometimes forget why it was being said, when it was being said and then apply it to today's world (which doesn't always work well.)
Interpretation is a funny thing. I work in the world of contracts and it's all about interpretation. Believe me, you say one thing and the complete opposite can be done if interpreted as such.
I just ask everyone to take a close look at the full sentence. Remember what sort of country we were when it was written (started in 1776.)
"A well regulated Militia" Does the guy down the street belong to a "regulated Militia"...not that I know of.
"being necessary to the security of a free State". So the Militia's is only necessary when the security and freedom of a State is being threatened.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" Notice it is the people (lowercase) of the Militia (uppercase) that have the right (when "security of a free State" is being threatened) when necessary. When items are in uppercase, it makes them a proper noun. So here, the people would not mean the "People" as citizens, but "people" of the "Militia" (which being in uppercase would mean an official group...hmmm, do I hear "well regulated"?)
"shall not be infringed." Ok, so if it's necessary for a State to protect the security of it's freedom then it can develop a well regulated Militia and those Militia people have the right to have guns.
One last thought:
In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun. The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.
Hmmm, "Guns don't kill people, People do" Again, it's one of those phrases that I think is missing the FULL Sentence.
"Guns don't kill people, People do, using a gun"
posted by Brad at 7:13 AM
4 comments
