BlueMan:
I'm not sure how you took it, but I just want to go on the record as saying I personally believe the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to own firearms... at least, it does today. However, I can *also* read that amendment as "A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the people may maintain one." I never said I thought the National Guard was a militia. In the sense that I *can* see the Amendment, a militia is a privately controlled, as in controlled by the "PEOPLE" you kept mentioning, entity.
Also, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is undefined. The "Founding Fathers," as we are so fond of calling them, never said "keep guns." They said "keep arms." If you take the Second Amendment as concrete, as you said you do, then technically, I'm allowed to have a nuclear warhead. I'm allowed to develop chemical and biological weapons. I'm allowed to "keep and bear" my hyrdogen bomb while I'm walking down the street, in front of your house.
But obviously this is complete shit. If you agree that any limitations can be set on "arms" ownership, then you CANNOT assert that the Second Amendment is absolutely clear. The Constitution, and any subsequent amendments, were specifically written as NOT to be clear, so they can apply to situations in the future. If the Second Amendment had said "You can carry a muzzle loading rifle with you at any time," we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Instead, it is ambigous, so that we may.
That is all.
|