|
Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM EST |
How about everyone reads this article by
a lawyer in the New Yorker? It
provides
the interpretation of the Second Amendment
throughout history. You'll
learn who it
was that first introduced the idea that
the amendment meant
personal guns:
For more than a hundred years, the answer was
clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the
amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 courts had found
that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear
arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower
courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear
arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
Enter
the modern National Rifle Association. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 12:45 PM EST |
"the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
You say the militia (however you want to define it) is a
subset of the people. Fine. Let's go with that.
..., the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not
be infringed.
Is that really so difficult?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|