|
The 2a supporter here are doing just what guy says .. wanting it both ways
Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:
1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),
2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,
3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!
If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn't it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don't mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).
|
Threaded Mode