Quote:
Originally posted by cool_chick
No, you have no problem interpreting the amendment the one particular way because that's what you want to interpret.
Granted, it's my interpretation as well, but as written, it is easily interpreted the other way as well. Hence my statements.
If it were so clear, it would be no issue. It would say "person" and/or leave out words like "well regulated militia" or hell, even if it was broken into two sentences.... Nah, it's vague, and scholars even agree it's poorly written.
The Second Amendment, as written, is so vague that it renders it easily interpretable either one or the other way.
Trust me, I wish it was clear, trust me I do, but it's not.
|
Yes, you've stated your position re: vagueness, and I've posted voluminous references to the contrary. Further, since we have the writings of those who in fact wrote the amendment and then saw it ratified, which supports my position, and yours by your statement, 100% of the time, without a single person involved with the Constitution stating that the Second Amendment means other than what my understanding of it is, you'll have to counter their words with some other view. Noteworthy is the fact that the whole idea of vagueness in the Second Amendment is a 20th century construct.
And, last, the best evidence of all is the fact that there are over 100 million gun owners in America who own more than 600 milliion firearms of all types. That's what you call irrefutable empirical evidence.
You may, of course, continue to see the Second Amendment as vague; but I understand it and so do millions of others in America.