Quote:
Originally posted by cool_chick
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.
|
The ABA isn't representative of much, only one in seven lawyers are members. It's notoriously leftwing in outlook, worse than the ACLU by quite a bit. The references I posted are, by and large, by law school professors.