Originally Posted by spence
Is it? Please define "arms" then. Slingshot? RPG?
The two appendages that hang from the shoulders and onto which the hands are attached.
Actually, it was clear that the framers meant weapons, including weapons of war. Though there were much larger weapons than various rifles and sidearms (cannons, gunboats, battleships, etc.,) there was no need to define what was protected as a right to own. If you could afford a battleship and had a place to keep it, it was your right. Now, local ordinances might interfere, not with your right to own an Abrams tank, but on what roads it would be allowed. If you can afford a hydrogen bomb and want to waste your money thusly, go for it. Again, there may be problems with hazardous material handling and storage. This nonsense that if you allow law abiding citizens to own nefarious and powerful weapons, chaos, anarchy, uncontrollabe mass murders and havoc will burst the seams of society is an insult to the people.
I'd think we could all agree that an individual doesn't need a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from assault or government abuse.
Not knowing what might be needed, it was probably better not to specify.
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.
Wow! Halfway into George Washington's first term as POTUS and rights were already "shifting to the federal government"? I guess that's why the Fed. Gov. has been able to grab so much power from the People--it had a huge head start.
Actually, wasn't the Constitution and its first ammendments a prohibition AGAINST the Federal Government--Those pesky negative rights that Obama complains about?
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...
For the most part, when "intent" is not clear, it is so due to a contending party trying to find a supposed lack of clarity and hidden intent so as to win an argument (approve Federal legislation, deny certain inalieanable rights, etc.) Arguing over whether a punishment is cruel or unusual (as if punishments are somehow other than cruel) in a Constitutional context is obviously and intentionally shadowy. There is obviously NO INTENT to specify. It is obviously left to the people to decide what is cruel and unusual. It should also be obvious that if it is so arguable as to cause such difficulty to decide, that the punishments are probably not cruel or unusual, but just distasteful to some, and a political tool for others.
I'm all for a balanced court as it will more times than not come to the correct conclusion.
-spence
|
Threaded Mode