[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by G1911

Have you quoted the wrong post? The Constitution is not really the subject directly or indirectly in this post at all. The first paragraph is about state bills and laws.

The second paragraph is about what a compromise is and why it's not an 'across the aisle' situation - because it is a demand by one side to cede rights and/or criminalize the other side without giving anything to the other side in return for this session. An interest in an actual compromise takes for granted that the federal state does regulate firearms, which is moving past a true constitutional framework.

Nonetheless, this is a very easy question to answer.

Greg- I'll be serious on this reply to you posting the 2nd Amendment and circling one part of it:

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.



This was written when there were no city police, no state troopers, no National Guard!


In today's world, do you really think it's necessary for the security of ANY free state (and they're ALL free now) to have a well regulated militia? Seriously?


This was written over 240 years ago and is out of step with today's world.


Sure gun ownership should not be 'infringed'(we don't even use that word anymore), but NOT EVERYBODY - and THAT's necessary for the security of ALL free states!


Of course, this, while an educated opinion, is only one...mine. Fire Away if you must.