Quote:
Originally posted by fastpat
It was included to relate the individual right to armed self defense individually is understood,
|
By whom?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Per Fastpat's interpretation. That's the problem. The clause is too vague.
Quote:
|
]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.
|
Actually, being precluded by "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," makes it vague. It can be interpreted either way. If that preclusion wasn't there, it would've been clear, yes. That preclusion makes it vague. Militia (which we have) or "individual" (which isn't mentioned, and isn't implied via the clause.
If anything, it implies the people have the right to a well armed militia.