- Banned
- #101
No it isn't. There is nothing ambiguous about our federal Constitution.I'm not sure how to take that.
-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?
-How about Army reservist?
(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)
No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.
But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "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." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".
1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.
2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.
The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.
Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.
The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.
Yeah....the problem with your analysis is the "Bear" part.......you can't carry a helicopter...
And you have no clue what you are talking about.....Scalia goes through the issue in Heller...you should actually read that before you comment on it....
I think my point has missed you.
The 2nd is poorly written.
Judges acted liberally based on how it was applied by the founding fathers not how it was written.
(I think largely they got it right if we are going by rules as intended vs rules as written. As written the 2nd is up for debate as much as the book of revelations is.)
Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
You are ambiguous.