Senate website gets 2nd Amendment wrong, critics say

[Freq18Hz]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/senate-website-gets-2nd-amendment-wrong-critics-say/

"""Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own guns?

The Supreme Court has ruled that it does. But you might be confused if you visit the official Senate web page on the Constitution, which says only: "Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated."

That particular wording was posted on the Senate website in 2009, based on archived web pages at The Internet Archive. However, that's one year after the Supreme Court ruled: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense."""

[solarman]

You cannot have a well armed militia without a well armed citizenry. Militia's are formed and disbanded as necessary. Just because I am not in a militia does not mean I will not join one if necessary. I believe that it is my right to be well armed not adequately armed, after all I intend to win.

[prometa]

It doesn't get it wrong, it just misleads. The question has been long debated. It's just been settled recently, though.

[Steve_In_29]

You cannot have a well armed militia without a well armed citizenry. Militia's are formed and disbanded as necessary. Just because I am not in a militia does not mean I will not join one if necessary. I believe that it is my right to be well armed not adequately armed, after all I intend to win.

Actually, back in the Founders time the "militia" was every man NOT in an organized unit such as the State Militias or Federal Army.

[BRANCHER]

A closer definition as I remember learning it (in college some years ago) was a militia was (at founding fathers time) defined was a group of people not connected with the government who gathered to come to practice with weapons. (In todays terms that would be similar to anyone who goes to the range). I am pretty close to exactly how he meant it.

He also got into the fact prose at that time was written in a way that is would be perfectly understandable that it was an individual right as well. He was settled in the fact it was an individual right (no controversy with him on that point). And he pulled out information from the newspapers of that day in to clarify meaning or desired meanings as well. He also hated when meanings changed over time and then people applied new meanings to the definition at the time it was written.

Great professor if you could get past the fact he made Ben Stein seem like a energetic speaker with a lot of inflection.

[Felix168]

sure, and that senator said something like an AR15 semiautomatic rifle can shoot over 100 rds in a min

[A-J]

The question has been long debated. It's just been settled recently, though.

Actually, the reverse is true. It's only in recent decades that it's become "debated". Prior generations were apparently smarter and less afraid of guns than our current ones.