Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem
While the topic is clear, the amendment is fraught with ambiguity and has been subject to conflicting interpretations and often acrimonious debate.

Not among constitutional scholars, even the most anti-gun of whom concede that the founders meant exactly what they said with the words "shall not be infringed."

It's only unclear to people who wish to disregard it.

10 posted on 06/05/2006 12:45:21 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: E. Pluribus Unum
Not among constitutional scholars, even the most anti-gun of whom concede that the founders meant exactly what they said with the words "shall not be infringed."

Even some noted liberal professors admit the obvious. Harvard's Laurence Tribe says, "The 14th Amendment, which makes parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, reflected a broad agreement that bearing arms was a 'privilege' of each citizen." Fellow Harvard liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees, and scolds fellow liberals for twisting the words of the Second Amendment in a way that could come back to haunt them. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard," said Dershowitz, "don't see the danger of the big picture." He added, "They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

77 posted on 06/05/2006 1:32:21 PM PDT by lemura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
When the Constitution was written there was no standing army or National Guard such as there is today. When it was necessary to repel an invasion, riot, revolt or whatever, large or small, the Militia was called out. The Militia was everyone of age that could help to provide a defense. In order to have the Militia affective it was required that each member possess a gun. The "not to be infringed clause" was to prevent some political hack, that had mischief in mind, getting a law passed that prevented citizens from owning guns, thus pulling the teeth of the Amendment. It's just as applicable today as it was then. If the gun hating crowd wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment why don't they attempt to repeal it?
83 posted on 06/05/2006 1:35:50 PM PDT by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson