Quote:
Originally posted by m21sniper
Miss, did you read the grammatical breakdown at the link pat posted?
It seems you did not.
The second amendment enumerates numerous rights, hence it's duality.
"A well regulated militia, being neccesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It says A) the Framers recognize a STATES right to a well regulated militia, and B) the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms.
What's more, the militia act CLEARLY states that any and all individuals mustering for service in the unorganized militia must show up with "appropriate military arms for the day, supplied by themselves."
Therefore in reality US law REQUIRES you to be armed should you ever be called up for service in the unorganized militia.
"Shall" is legalese for MUST. So "shall not be infringed" means MUST NOT be infringed. "The people" means the whole body of the people in every instance in which it is used in the US constitution/BoR.
Even in court, where it's john doe vs the people, it is only the state that represents the people, the term the people still means EXACTLY the same thing- the whole body of the people.
There is no grey area.
|
Hun, did you miss the "It's one of two interpretations because it's so vague?"
That's this guy's opinion. That doesn't mean there's no "grey" area.
This opinion also recognizes the FRAMERS intention.
From the ABA website
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall99humanrights/blek.html
History tells us that the Second Amendment is based on the colonist’s fear of the military forces sent by King George III to compel obedience to cruel and burdensome laws and taxes.
Federalist James Madison drafted a Bill of Rights for presentation at the first Congress. His draft of the Second Amendment was ultimately restructured into its present form in order to place greater emphasis on the militia purpose in dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. Ironically, the New Hampshire convention suggested far broader language—that being: "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion." It is indeed significant that our first Congress rejected this broad language in order to adopt the present version with its more restrictive language.
I"m not going to argue for gun control because I don't believe in gun control. I"m just tired of you guys and your "i'm right and superior" attitude over this vague clause claiming it's "clear" when it's not, that can be interpreted either way.