Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
The right to bear arms is clear and articulate.
|
Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?
I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.
The Second Amendment in particular was drafted at a time where states rights were shifting to the federal government. The language of these statutes weren't born from a golden goose, they were hashed out by people trying to draft rules to guide a country given the challenges of the moment.
If the job of a judge is to determine if a law passed constitutional muster, one can only assume that they must first try to understand constitutional intent, which isn't always so clear. The arguments over "cruel and unusual punishment" during the Bush years are evidence enough...
I'm all for a balanced court as it will more times than not come to the correct conclusion.
-spence