Washington never said that "that a free people need 'sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence' from their own government." The only thing he did say was, "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined..." You can find the entire speech to congress here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0361. The context he is referring to goes back to the idea of the establishment of troops for protection and have their own military supplies.
And despite what this sign seems to imply, the quote beneath the 2nd Amendment is not a part of the 2nd Amendment.
As to the argument which frequently comes with this that the Supreme Court has said that no guns may be regulated or limited, that also is not true. Perhaps the most conservative Justice in recent memory, was Justice Anthony Scalia who writing a majority opinion on gun control in the Court's most recent decision, wrote "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause."
In other words not all weapons are protected from being banned. The AR-15 is considered an M16 replica and was considered to be originally a military weapon. (https://gundigest.com/reviews/the-ar-16m16-the-rifle-that-was-never-supposed-to-be)
Check your facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment