Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
That is exactly right. A justification by definition an explanation of why a course of action is necessary. The justification statement is an explanation of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Interpreting it as a limitation on who is granted that right causes the two statements (or two subsections of the same statement, if you prefer to view it that way) to become contradictory.
|
What I take issue with is the absolute separation of qualification from justification. Yes, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a justification, but within it being justification, why is it not a qualification? You've already said that logically if the justification is wrong then the operative is flawed, but doesn't that suggest that it's much more than an explanation?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
read my other post a few above.
|
I've never known you to dodge a question. DC and I have both asked directly about the worst-case consequences of making rights
absolute. We've both cited examples of how bad things could get with completely unchecked freedom.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
After Martian's analysis and willravel's insistence, yes, it has become clearer to me: The right of "the people" to bear arms is maintained within the context of a "well regulated militia." The first part of the phrasing reads like a conditional clause: the "people" that it refers to have been identified as those within a "well regulated militia." That is to say, the reason why "the people" have right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of operating within a "well regulated militia."
|
Welcome to the liberal side of the force.
