Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
rat, this sounds suspiciously like the 'living constitution' theory, where people can use judical activism to redefine terms when something that started out great, becomes not so great because of personal displeasure.
|
I believe the founders gave us the power to amend the Constitution for a reason. It was never intended to be set in stone. They designed it to be flexible, and to be open to interpretation. That's a GOOD thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
US v. Cruikshank. 'The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.'
|
Without some context, that sounds to me like judicial activisim. :P
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I believe george mason said it best when he said "Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
|
Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. (I was also specifically directing my question at Ustwo, but that's fine, your answer is quite welcome of course.) The question is: given they DID put the "because, you know, militla!" rationalization into the wording of the amendment itself,
why do you think they did that? I don't really have an answer, but I think it's interesting, and I'd like to see pro-gun folks' thoughts about the question. It's not a "gotcha", I just think it's curious. It's the only amendment where they included their thinking on the matter. Why do you think they felt that was necessary?