It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well regulated in this context means in good working order and citizens are the Militia.
What does the whiskey rebellion, etc have to do with this? The topic is that the school is using a workbook that is telling blatant lies about what the 2nd amendment means. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean only certain weapons and they must be registered.
that's your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
There are several different interpretations, the one that's important is the interpretation the Supreme Court makes.
Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes.
All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia
We either have the right to bear arms, or we don't.
The text between the 2nd comma and the last comma should be considered as something like a side note or clarification, much like we use parenthesis. A free State can only exist if it can defend itself and can only defend itself if it is armed.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the right of the people to keep and bear arms), shall not be infringed.
The principle is absolute ..the wording? Well... If the wording were to be taken literal, with nothing OUTSIDE that document used to understand context?
Of course..we know that isn't the context and the DC vs. Heller case of 2009 made that into actual law of our land, for the future to come. It's all been by interpretation and that makes nothing absolute in that document. Usually....for the better.
reply to post by Bassago
nah brah; I can disagree with you there.
After all; how would we enforce laws against child-pornography, fraud/false advertising, intellectual property laws, etc. without some limitations or interpretations of the first ammendment?
What about mediums that have only appeared in the centuries following the constitution, such as film, photography, or software?
should I be able to broadcast hardcore pornography on public airwaves, regardless of how it may impact others? Am I allowed to yell fire! in a crowded movie theater, or start panic and stampede in another place? Should a company be allowed to make bogus claims without even having to have small print that debases it?
Hmm, that sounds a little Animal Farmish to me. When we begin to interpret the Bill of Rights as anything but literal we seem to get into trouble. As we are now and not just with the 2nd Amendment. "Better" is always a subjective argument.
What a sad state we have come to, where we as a country take something like "Up is up and down is down" and need 9 people to tell us what it really means.
I'm not sure I understand you here. "When we begin?" We've never stopped. Interpreting our Constitution to the issues and circumstances it's used to address defines the literal purpose and mission of the Supreme Court as our 3rd equal branch of Government.