guppy.. which brings us to you... If you believe as you say.. or as I read you to say.. that we as individuals do not have any right to own firearms unless the state says we do and then only if we are trained in war.. and enlisted in whatever they call the militia...
But.. you also say that you have to read the second as it you feel it was intended.. that it should be read as it was written. and how it was intended at that time.
You would have to conclude that the founders meant that every able bodied mans right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed since, at the time, the "milita" was... every able bodied man. The only thing we would be arguing about was the fact that any defenition of "militia" that was different than the original would be...Unconstitutional... without changing the amendment.. you can't change the meaning of the amendment by changing the meaning of a word.
But..that is not what the second is about. If you look at the style of the constitution and the documents at the time.. it was quite common to put a preamble phrase in front of the operative one. a "reason" for the importance so to speak.. in no case was it ever the sole, the only reason for the operative phrase...
Why would the second be any different? Why interpret the constitution on meaning in every case but the second where.. you wish to make a modern meaning that did not exist at the time?
The justices and every worthwhile constitutional scholar agree that the second is a right "of the people" not the state.. the state is secondary.. the state has the right to have a militia but that militia is derived from an armed populace.. the people.. who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
even if you used the "reasonable man" argument.. A normal court practice then and now...
Would a reasonable man reading the second find that it meant that the people had no right to keep and bear arms? that it was a state right and not an individual one?
98% of "the people" say that is false.. 98% of "the people" think "the people" means them as an individual.. that it is an individual right.
It seems certain the court will affirm this. they have been wrong before tho.. if they do... you and bingie and 2% of the country will say it is a bad decision.. if they say it is not an individual right...
Well... the stakes are much higher aren't they? it is a direct thwarting of the will of the people and the thinking of the scholars of the day. not just a few but a landslide majority.
lazs
Clearly I'm not speaking clearly
How I read it, was that at the time it was written, the meaning was clear. It was expected that the people had arms, as they were the last line of defense. It seems to say that if they can't afford it, that the government should provide it. All of this stemmed from the people being the militia that could be called up by the Feds with the approval of each state and was trained by each state under guidlines provided by the feds.
So in the end each state could expect that those folks bearing arms were trained to use them by the leaders of the state militia and that they were available for use to protect the state or the country as needed.
So do I believe the government can take away the guns? No. Do I believe they have the right to make sure folks are trained to use them and that we're accountable to our state and potentially the federal government to be there if we're needed. Yes.
So I don't believe the 2nd is just a blanket guns for all amendment without any accountabilty.
