Quote:
Originally Posted by Vellatri
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I already did, though.
I shut down your argument about reducing only some types of murder at the expense of having more overall violence.
Source please? (To your original post, so I can look over replies.) The forum search doesn't provide exact pages, unless I'm using the wrong settings.
I already explained that the only legal way to make "arms" mean something other than "arms" is via ratification.
|
Ok...lets first address the ratification business. It doesn't require state ratification to interpret the constitution...it does to amend it, yes. But we're not talking about amending it. We're talking about the fact that since the Supreme Court decided in 2008 that the right to bear arms WAS an individual right (up until then the Supreme Court leaned toward the fact that it was as a militia) we don't really know what it means.
We know that if we apply it with an understanding that they mean militia, then we can expect it to mean whatever a modern militia would use.
The problem is also that people totally ignore
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What does that part really mean if the right to bear arms is an individual right? Wouldn't the founding fathers have said simply that
'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'? They made it awfully difficult to understand when that other part is in there.
Does that also mean that if you own arms, that you are required to be on call to a militia and bear them in defense? No one is addressing that, either. It's a pertinent question since the framers specifically included the militia in the Second Amendment.
Let me look for that study.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]