well, if you look at those two clauses together, you could easily and reasonably infer from them a justification for some limitations on gun ownership rights.
for example, "a well-regulated militia" likely could not abide crazy people.
it likely would not abide those with serious criminal backgrounds--or presents characterized by that sort of activity.
and there'd likely have to be some kind of safety training.
so one could argue that gun ownership could be regulated in the way driving is without violating the meanings one can reasonably impute to that entire sentence.
but the clauses are separated by precedent.
you'd think then that there would be less correlation between strict constructionists and absolutist positions on the 2nd amendment.
sometimes precedent is what enables counter-intuitive positions to become possible that strict construction folk like. it's a conundrum, really, how that circles is squared.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
Last edited by roachboy; 10-11-2010 at 12:42 PM..
|