Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Now WHY on earth would the framers of the constitution specifically denote a RIGHT, to an organization that didn't exist at the time of its writing, the RIGHT to bear arms, as if they were afraid we wouldn't arm a military branch?
|
They had a well regulated militia at the time, remember? The American Revolutionaries were mostly militia. When the Revolutionary War started, we ONLY had a militia. We saw what a government run military could do in the British Army, attacking a colony despite the reasonable request for adequate representation in government. The militia was to regulate power, but it was to be organized. Whether or not the National Guard would fill the role of a counterbalance to the Army, Navy, Marines, etc. is another conversation, but it is a regulated militia.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Do you realize how non-sensical that sounds?
|
To a gun right's advocate? Of course it sounds nonsensical to you. To me? It makes perfect sense. The language is quite clear, and it supports my conclusion. What doesn't support my conclusion would be the fact that we live in a democracy, and I don't think a gun ban would have 50%+ if put to a vote. Cest la vis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
The PEOPLE are us...you, me, and your neighbor. The PEOPLE are the well-regulated militia. It makes zero sense to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that the military had a uninfringable right to be armed when the framers were VERY SPECIFIC about ensuring a military was completely subservient to the people.
|
Your welcome to your opinion. I disagree.
If I were a supreme court justice, I would do what I could to rule in what I see is the true spirit of the Amendment.