 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the first time in 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court will take on the question of whether individual Americans have the
right to keep and bear arms or whether it a collective right of the people for service in a state militia.
Would America be safer with stricter gun control. Worse case senario, would you ever give up your right to "bear arms"?
www.reuters.com...
|
From a conspiracy stand point. Do you think the government is slowly trying to strip our rights away? It, in my own opinion, it would be easier to
control a population without arms.
[edit on 16-3-2008 by Master_Wii]
|
I had at one time the official US definition of "militia," and that definition was broken down into the organized militia and the unorganized
militia, the latter of which was any able-bodied man (though with equality applied, we might say woman, as well) between the ages of 18 and 64 (I
believe it was).
And so, the Second Amendment uses the need to maintain a militia as one example of why we have the right to bear arms, and that would mean that each
of us that is able-bodied and between 18-64 could be considered a part of this country's militia and therefore ones who have most definitely the
right to bear arms under this amendment. (Although, in reality, all who can hoist their weapon have the right.)
But it's likely to be ruled that only the organized militia has the right, because that's what the Bush faction wants it to be.
Mark my words.
|
