There Was Never an Intent For an Individual Right to Firearms

[Zadoc]

There Was Never an Intent For an Individual Right to Firearms

he Second Amendment is one of the most controversial amendments in the Constitution, if not the most controversial. It wasn’t always so, it has only been in the last several years that the meaning of the amendment was changed by the courts to grant citizens a broad right to firearms. However, this is not what the founders had in mind. So, what were they thinking?

[Warpy]

1. No, it was an intent that independent state militias

would eliminate the need for a dangerous standing army.

They knew by 1800 that wasn't going to work. The Second remains as a dangerous anachronism that needs to be redefined by the court.

But not this Court.

[JDPriestly]

2. K&R Very interesting.

Perhaps the solution to the guns/Second Amendment controversy is to require anyone wishing to own a gun to volunteer to serve in the National Guard a certain number of hours per year.

Those who wish to own guns could help out in disasters -- at no charge to the state or federal government.

It's just an idea. Seems like a good way to insure that people who have guns handle them responsibly and are mentally fit to have guns. Those who could not successfully complete their National Guard service due to anger or emotional problems or for some other reason would not be eligible to have guns.

[cthulu2016]

3. Since the D party, the R party, the SCOTUS and the President think otherwise...

then the road to accepting that interpretation (which may well be correct) is very long.

[humbled_opinion]

4. Yes that is true however,

we really understand the truth of the matter is that if we want a reduction in the number of people killed with guns than we must reduce the availability of guns in society, we can easily look at both the Britain and Australia as good starting examples. Certainly the gun deaths in Newton should prompt us to try and bring about this change. The Barack Obama I voted for certainly has the ability to communicate this needed change to the public, or do you suggest that we don't even try and than what possibly can this President say to the American people at the next massacre eulogy? I want him to have a legacy of success not failure.

[cbrer]

5. Well then that settles it!

NOT!

[Scuba]

6. "Suppressing insurrection"? Many of today's gunners think it is to support insurrection.

[safeinOhio]

7. you got it.

a half Irish President is enough reason for insurrection.

[HuckleB]

8. +1