Quote:
|
Originally Posted by whocarz
"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."
I don't see in there anywhere that states that you MUST belong in a militia to own a gun. Nor does it outline what constitues a militia. Since there is no guideline for the organization of a militia, one could easily claim that one man can be a militia.
|
One can easily claim both sides. Con-law is interpreted by using "intent of the framers." So what was their intent here? To let everyone own guns no matter what? Then why'd they include the first sentence?
Or to let only those in a militia own guns? Then why didn't they say so more specifically?
It's an extremely vague clause, and can be interpreted either way.
Frankly I think they were leaning toward people in militias owning guns. Of course, back then, the whole freakin' country was in a militia - we'd just gotten done fighting off the British, and we'd done it by having just about every male pick up guns and fight.
And even though I think the second probably only guarantees those in a militia the right to own guns, I also think that acting on that interpretation and banning guns to the general public would be a rather large mistake, since the people that would use the guns to commit crimes aren't real likely to turn theirs in - we'd end up with only criminals being armed.