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

To: vincentfreeman
I don't think the argument that the 2nd Amendment was intended to be limited to militias only is supportable either by the wording of the amendment (which clearly places the right with "the people") nor the early drafts or sources of the Bill of Rights (for example, if you look at early drafts of the 1st Amendment, they include explanatory clauses, like the militia clause, explaining why freedom of speech is important. I think it's hard to read "people" as anything but an individual right.
36 posted on 05/08/2008 1:11:43 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Question_Assumptions
"which clearly places the right with "the people"

It clearly does. Not with "the citizens". Not with "all persons".

"I think it's hard to read "people" as anything but an individual right."

Let's accept that. Then how do you read "arms" for these individuals? I see no limitation.

38 posted on 05/08/2008 1:34:25 PM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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