I thought the Constitution was clear on this.
So why the flurry of court cases?
you’d be surprised how easily people like to bend the words of the constitution to work in their favor. My favorite is how they bend the words “The freedom to bear arms shall not be infringed upon” all of a sudden means the only people who have the right to own a weapon are those in the national guard.
you’d be surprised how easily people like to bend the words of the constitution to work in their favor. My favorite is how they bend the words “The freedom to bear arms shall not be infringed upon” all of a sudden means the only people who have the right to own a weapon are those in the national guard.
Wait a minute. The 2nd amendment says:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The sentence states a clear intent/purpose. You could argue that the idea of a “militia” was a broad one, and implied private citizens. It is unfair to say that words are being bent. Given the formulation, and if one reads this sentence alone, I think it is fair to describe the “national guard” idea as reflective of intent.
You would have to look beyond the words of the consitution – to other documents and to prevailing practice to be able to defend a broader interpretation of intent.
The first phrase of that amendment is really inconsequential. It says the reason behind the amendement, but the operative part is “the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Since the phrase “as long as” or some variant thereof is not in there, the second phrase is all we need be concerned with.
The principle of separation between Church and State is not so much legally stated in the Constitution as expressed on many occasions by the Founding Fathers.
Back in the day, when their ideas were respected, so was the separation.
None of the writings of the founders indicate any intnent other than private citizens. Also, even today, every male aged 18-45 is a member of the militia.
I thought the Constitution was clear on this.
So why the flurry of court cases?
The First Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of religion applies specifically to Congress. An activist Supreme Court has construed the Fourteenth Amendment to include state and local governments in this prohibition. But as the eminent legal scholar Raoul Berger has argued, the Court achieved this interpretation by evading or misrepresenting the intent of both the framers and supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment. Berger convincingly argues that the Court illegitimately converted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Privileges and Immunities Clauses into tools for nationalizing the Bill of Rights. Berger calls these actions “usurpations” that removed “from the States a power that unmistakably was left to them.” See Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (1997 2nd ed.), ed. Forrest McDonald (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1997).
I too am interested in discussing the right to bear arms, but do not want to dilute this thread.
Have created a new topic to discuss the issue.