Dad - Voice of Reason? Or Rabble Rousing Pinko Commie?

hi dawn I read it and it does so und reasonable to me sol have no argument at all. Good for your dad. more power to him

wow... your dad should be a politician. Id vote for him. Tell him well done. Makes alot of sence...

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the government and listed the rights of the people. The second Amendment state "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If you notice the word Arms is in Capitalized meaning all weapons of war. it does not say that the rights of the militia it specifically states the people. At the time of the writing of the Constitution a Militia was citizens banding together on their own to protect themselves and their family and property. They were not controlled by the State Government or the Federal Government but by the people. He should also read the 9th and 10th amendments to see that many of the things the Federal Government is doing is not allowed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment makes it very clear that any power not granted to the Federal Government is reserved for the States or the people.

Kudos to your dad.

Hi dawnald, Of course your father is right here and yes the meaning of words have changed. Blessings.

This is a great letter and your Dad is a brave man to express his views. I believe him to be right. If he is a commie (didn't know that there were any left) then I am standing behind him.

Interesting. I was not aware that the French Revolution played a role in this amendment. If I remember well, the right to keep arms has been rejected during the discussion of the 1791 French constitution. It is anecdotal because this constitution has been replaced by another one in 1793, replaced by another one in 1795, replaced by another one in 1799, replaced by etc. It looks like constitutions are written to be replaced when the ink is not yet dried in France. Living here I have some difficulties to understand how you can feel that your constitution is written for eternity. You can do this only by interpreting it constantly, because a society needs to evolve. Like your father says, in 1789 "“Arms” originally meant muzzle-loading, single-shot weapons"... and perhaps also swords and sabers, more efficient at this time that one of those weapons using a black powder fearing humidity. After stating that this amendment "is a pillar of our democracy" your father undermines -- I could not resist to use this term -- meticulously this pillar by using a good old exegetical method. Nobody could be more reasonable.