Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #4)
Tue Oct 2, 2012, 11:16 AM
TPaine7 (4,286 posts)
6. And yet that has never been the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted (by the Supreme Court)
Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2012, 12:01 PM - Edit history (4)
The Supreme Court, the very first time it mentioned the Second Amendment, called it a right "of person" and said that individual, private citizens could travel freely in every state and carry guns wherever they went.
Your interpretation makes an unwarranted leap. Even taken at face value, excluding all other reasons does not mean what you are applying it to mean. Accepting, for the sake of discussion, that the need for a militia is the only reason the right to arms is explicitly protected, it does not follow that the right only exists for militia service.
Let's look at a similar construction:
"The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state it ought not, therefore, to be restricted in this commonwealth." Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVI (1780)
Applying the rule--"the express mention of one thing excludes all others"--as you did above, we would conclude that liberty of the press only existed for "the security of freedom in a state" and that any publication that did not serve that purpose was unprotected.
Another serious issue is ignoring the meaning of the word "right." As the Court has said multiple times, the RKBA existed before the Constitution and is not dependent on the Constitution for its existence. The American legal philosophy is that people with rights exist, then governments are instituted for the purpose of securing those rights.
By calling the "right to keep and bear arms" a right, the founders said, quite clearly, that the people's right to keep and bear arms is one of those things that government exists to secure. The popular argument that the right only exists so that citizens may secure the state is turning the entire system on its head.
Be warned: I have a can of beans and I can open it under water while riding a bicycle -paraphrase of rrneck
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
And yet that has never been the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted (by the Supreme Court)
|4th law of robotics||Oct 2012||#7|
Please login to view edit histories.