Sentences with phrase «security of a free state»
(3) The NRA twists the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment («A well - regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed»).
religion-online.org
it CLEARLY states» a well regulated Mitlitia being necessary to the security of a free State...»....
The 2nd Amendment states: «A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.»
or a well working Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The second amendment does not exist for hunting or personal defense — it exists just for what it says:... being necessary to the security of a free state... the right to keep (yes, keep) and bear arms shall not be infringed.
1 A well armed Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Ah, you mean this: «A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?»
«A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.»
The second amendment doesn't call for the right to keep and bear arms to be well regulated, it states «A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed» the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The purpose of a militia being to fight a better organized foe than any one citizen can on their own, the second amendment is designed to allow citizens to fight the government if it means defending the «security of a free State».
In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self - defense, despite the amendment's opening language - «A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,» - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then).
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.
Our founding fathers did not write the Second Amendment to empower people who wanted to terrorize a free state; they wrote it to protect people who could defend «the security of a free state.»
I noticed that you did quote the provision of the Civil Rights Law, which appears to be taken verbatim from the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, and you did include the phrase «a well - regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state [comma]».
Today, the security of our free state is being tested by terrorists.»
It does not define «security of a free State».
«We endorse and uphold the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution: A well - regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.»
The Second Amendment («A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.»)
The Second Amendment states, «A well - regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.»
«A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.»
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court is expected to interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment, which says, «A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.»
For the men in that room, a right of the people is to keep and bear arms, to the security of a free state.
It states specifically: «A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.»