Originally Posted by John_0515
This was something that was recognized, and allowed men (African Americans) to be freed. Good, hard working, honest men. Had they all been criminals would it have been right to free the slaves? No. Furthermore, the pending "weapon ban" punishes those who are "hard working", "honest", and "law abiding". Why punish those who are responsible? AND, create a registry where you are forced to enter into, fingerprinted and photographed, because you are an owner of firearms?
Reward people for being good, and stop punishing all of America. Where is the fight against drugs? Alcohol? No, this is another step towards social reform.
Why did the founders put into the Second Amendment that odd word "well-regulated? I would argue that they understood that arms were both a necessity and a danger if not properly managed. The right to keep a weapon in no way means that Joe citizen should be unencumbered by safeguards and rules for "keeping" arms. In fact, beyond the collective organization of militias through a well regulated mechanism through the community/state, it makes sense to me that the average individual should be severely restricted in the availability and use of arms for personal use. The right to have arms should not be infringed, but the nature of the arms kept and their regulation is frankly essential. The founders were pretty clear that they were not recommending individual vigilantes to protect the security of the free state. The couple of times that happened in the early years of the Republic, the fools were simply crushed at Washington's explicit instruction. He had no quarter for self-styled insurrectionists claiming oppression by the federal government.