Quote:
Originally posted by cool_chick
A militia is still not an individual. But why would they include "militia" if they meant individual?
|
It was included to relate the individual right to armed self defense individually is understood, and again, it's "a militia" which indicates militia in the non-specific sense, not "the militia" mentioned in the main body of the Constitution with regard to state and federal military power.
Quote:
|
Please note, this is not my position, but this is the ACLU's and many others' position. Me personally, I think the clause is too vague and I can see either interpretation.
|
Some consider it vague, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty narrow and accurate in my opinion. Further, it's written to apply to the state governments as well as the federal government. No government was to be allowed to restrict arms owned and possessed by individuals.
Quote:
|
Either way, the ACLU feels the constitutionality of this clause is intact, it's not because they're "socialists."
|
They've intentionally chosen the socialist "collective rights" interpretation, rather than the freedom enhancing "individual rights" fact. You may draw any implication from that you wish, or not.
Reference:
The Second Amendment Law Library