Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
The thing is; I don't see that it's all that "vague". It calls for well regulated state militia. There is no mention of individual rights in the amendment itself.........what-so-ever. Some see vagueness in the second half. Some see absolute certainty of "individual rights" in the second half. I see neither. We have never had an absolute individual right to unregulated gun ownership that some insist we do today.
Now, you could argue intent based on other writings by the founders. That would be the only place where an argument could be made, IMO. However, such writings do not constitute the agreed upon and signed legal document. They only express the intent of some of the individuals involved.
|
"Intent" is the core of disputed interpretations, I'm quite sure the NRA has a different interpretation of the obtuse phrasing.
I'm also pretty sure the phrasing does NOT sanction armed insurrection for ANY reason as some insist it does.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk