|
I've always thought it was interesting that the original 2nd has a justification built into it. To put it in plain, modern english, the 2nd reads, "People's right to have and use guns shall not be infringed upon, since it's necessary for a free state to have a well-armed army."
It's the only amendment that has a rationalization built into it. You don't see "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, because, you know, no one religion is truer than any other, and we had enough of that nonsense back in England, and most of us founding fathers are Deists anyway, not Christians, so, yeah, we're doing that."
Kind of makes you suspect that this was controversial even when it was written, doesn't it? Like, they had to put that in there to justify something.
Also, those who say amendments to the constitution shouldn't contain specifics, you're probably not familiar with the Seventh: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." That "twenty dollars" is both VERY specific and HORRIBLY out of date.
|