But it's the conservatives that have distorted the 2nd Amendment. It very clearly says that the right to bear arms is to ensure an effective militia.
If it were clearly written, there wouldn't be so much arguing over its meaning.
"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."
The relationship between the militia & bearing arms isn't explicitly stated.
Moreover, the portion after the comma gives the uninfringed right to "the people",
which includes all...men, women, children, & others not in an organized militia.
As I read it...
A well regulated militia is the reason that the people
have the right to bear militarily capable small arms.
What I most often hear from the left is that the amendment means that
government has the right to bear arms, but not people outside of government.
Talk about
distortion....
And I am fully supportive of having those in a registered militia allowed to be allowed to have such arms. Since that would probably require background checks, and mental health evaluations, I see nothing wrong with such.
On the other hand, if you are NOT in a militia, there should be restrictions on what weapons of mass destruction you can own.
This sounds good to me, but there's a wrinkle...
Who is "the militia"?
George Mason said it is the "whole people".
This would be a broader meaning than the "well regulated militia".
And while you are 'allowed' to say the things you did, it is still *anti-American* to do so. You see, even being anti-American is allowed in America. An example is claiming that effective journalism is counter to the interests of the people of the US, advocating bigotry and racism, and declaring that the Supreme Court shouldn't be obeyed.
Btw, I'm unabashedly anti-Ameristanian.
This country must be stopped....at least to the
extent that I could become pro-Ameristanian.