Oh, thank goodness the US doesn’t lead the world in Mass Shootings…so I guess that somehow makes the number we have acceptable…seems like a defense rather than a condemnation of the “culture of death”…but, often, politics gets in the way of morality.
Constitutional lawyer argue over this and even Scalia’s rendition still argues over a right to open carry.
This amendment needs to be looked at in the context of it’s time. When adulterer’s were stoned in old Testament times it was law and unquestioned by those who followed the law. That law would no longer be carried out.
If we look at it as a states right to defend themselves at that time in history it makes sense, the citizen soldier was needed and by most standards their activity was in harmony with the idea they were from the population of people in the community. Their guns resided with them.
If we look at today in history when a shooter can bring 10 30 round magazines, and in 20 minutes kill 20 children and 6 teachers. I can argue with an educated guess this in not the type of freedom the framers of the amendment had in mind…
The amendment is antiquated. When the government (local or otherwise) has to step in to stop actual or potential harm within the community due to assault style weaponry where 1 man is the equivalent of Rambo…Time to stop it.
Please re-read post #127.
Or perhaps you might give examples of other nonsense clauses in the constitution?
It does. The but people finds ways to redefine the matter to blow smoke over the fact.
You are but confirming my assertion that you think the framers wrote the prefatory phrase for no reason whatsoever. This is just a desperate attempt to put the Heller decision beyond all doubt. It was a bad decision won by the narrowest of margins. The scope of Heller has been exaggerated too. The interpretation cited in Heller is certainly up for debate.
There is certainly no ‘inborn, inalienable etc’ right to own guns. If that were the case it would be reflected universally. It isn’t. It has universally been regarded as an ‘auxiliary’ right in service to a particular ‘inherent’ right. In fact, the English Bill of Rights upon which the 2nd Amendment is modelled says,
In vain would these rights [personal security, personal liberty, and private property] be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject … is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute … and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression
Our inherent right is to security, liberty and private property as articulated in the English Bill. If those rights are in fact harmed by gun ownership, that auxiliary right to own guns loses legitimacy, as is the case in today’s England.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.