Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
again, not turning this into a 2nd amendment debate, but one need only look at the federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as most other essays and documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD, to completely understand that the 2nd amendment in no way implies, states, or mandates that ONLY a standing government military is afforded a right to bear arms. People who cannot understand that concept are being completely and willfully ignorant of history and the plain meaning of words.
|
Documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD is now just history because, as I've stated ad nauseum, we don't live in the late 1700s. Rules that are necessary today mean that the Constitution needs to be interpreted based on the language, and then based on reasonable context. Parts of the Constitution are antiquated. That's reality. In order for the Constitution to be functional, it has to be interpreted and read to incorporate today's social and political reality. Or do you want us to live under literal 1776 law? Maybe you think that things like Net Neutrality shouldn't happen because Tom Jefferson didn't include it.
Give this article a gander:
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_d...?record_id=363