|
Nosathro -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/12/2013 10:10:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
[sm=eeew.gif]
quote:
ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two
I also find it amusing that this supposed expert has a glaring error in the 3rd paragraph.
Most of the references posted by Nosathro have considerable humor value, and the error you are pointing out is only the least of the one's at that link.
Bergmann explained that most scholars agree that the part about the militia is written first because it was the most important aspect of the amendment. It gave the right to regulate militias to the national government. In a way, this was an early predecessor to the National Guard... When the National Guard was created, the issue of owning a gun for a militia is eliminated, so the question of individual gun ownership becomes the focus of the Second Amendment.
This is, of course, complete and utter bullshit.
Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that Congress has established the present National Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia. ~Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Congress
Heller's finding of an individual right confirmed the consensus of legal scholars.
The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation
In other words, that link is just more of his magic math.
K.
[sm=boxer.gif] Can't argue the facts can you? Anything other than a 1982 paper and an unsigned one?
The Supreme court also stated:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
|
|
|
|
