primavera
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-26-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
128. It's not, or at least wasn't |
|
Until today, the Second Amendment was always understood to mean what it plainly said, that the right to bear arms was tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. No one's ever had a problem with militias or their contemporary successors in the National Guard keeping and bearing firearms. The problem enters in when you a cherry picked group of ultra right-wing justices conclude that the Framers were on crack when they wrote the Constitution and really didn't intend to include the language about a well-regulated milita - that bit just somehow was slipped in by accident but nobody ever really intended for it to be there - and extend to every Tom, Dick, and Harry a new right which never existed. But that's not the Second Amendment's fault - the Second Amendment has always been quite clear - that's purely the fault of right-wingers trying to give a veneer of legality to the achievement of their Wild West wet dream by attributing their homicidal aspirations to the Second Amendment.
|