Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
right, because it's so damn hard to interpret 'shall not be infringed', or 'congress shall make no law' and decide that it means 'reasonable restrictions'. what a bunch of political bullshit.
|
It's frustrating, because you're not understanding simple constitutional law and governmental procedure.
The problem isn't the "shall not be infringed". That's pretty simple. "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." speaks very clearly, however, about how "the people" who have "the right" "not to be infringed" must be a part of "a well regulated militia". This is very, very, very simple language. You're not in a well regulated militia, therefore you're not protected. But aside from obvious linguistics, the supreme court has spoken on their interpretation of the Second Amendment, and you disagreeing with them doesn't supersede their constitutionally provided authority to interpret. See, that's the bullshit. You read the constitution, and then ignore all of the constitutionally supported rulings over the next few hundred years. It's not 1776. It's 2007. The 231 years, 3 months, and 7 days between then and now still apply. You can ignore them if you want, but the reality is that legally, they happened.
Neither you nor Dr. Ron Paul are supreme court justices. It's not up to you to interpret laws, those interpretations which can be enforced by the executive. You vote. That is your right.