Quote:
Originally posted by cool_chick
With all due respect, no, it is not clear. If it was intended to be individual, there would be no need to include either (1) the word militia, and the words (2) well-regulated. Try as you might to claim it's not vague by capturing and highlighting only 1/2 of the the sentence as proof of "clarity", the sentence as you quote is not complete, and when the sentence is presented in it's entirety, as written, it's vague.
|
Again, it's not vague to me, nor to anyone that's made a study of the Amendment. I posted numerous scholarly articles from legal journals for your edification on the subject, none of them had the slightest trouble with the wording, and neither do I. It is my opinion that this means it's only vague to those without sufficient knowledge of the words contained in the amendment. What other cause could there be? The preponderance of scholarly work published in law journals supports my position, something on the order of over 40 or 50 works by law professors. Are you saying that they don't know "vague"?
Quote:
Whew, well then, it's a good thing I do have a firm grasp of those things.
Doesn't matter what you or I think, this clause doesn't exist.
Yes, and because the clause is VAGUE...get it, VAGUE (remember, you claim to have a firm grasp of the english language, surely you know what VAGUE means), this is one of two potential interpretations to this VAGUE clause.
|
The only modern Second Amendment case, US vs. Miller 1938 , found the Second Amendment meant individual rights protections.