I think that what this boils down to is that the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” have not been adequately examined in terms of their scope, extent and constraints. What is the scope and extent of this right? What are the constraints?
Some people on this forum have said that the right is unlimited, up to and including keeping man-pack nuclear weapons. On the other hand, some of those plus still others have said that the right to keep and bear arms is limited by the property rights of others. But these positions are mostly opinion. Actual discussion with substantiation for the reasoning has been scant.
I will point out that “the right of the people to vote” (same phrasing as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is not unlimited.
The Second Amendment community needs to discuss this issue (because the other side will) and they have not been doing so as far as I can tell. If we don't get our stuff together, the other side will prevail.
posted on 07/29/2012 8:34:14 AM PDT
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
When Scalia refers to regulating, he's speaking of the first part, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,... I think he's talking about regulating the weapons in terms of what's reasonable and practical, not what's available. They can't take away the right to bear arms, and they can't regulate back to muskets only, but they can regulate to what is reasonable to maintain a practical civil defense force for personal or neighborhood protection.
posted on 07/29/2012 9:02:35 AM PDT
by Political Junkie Too
(It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson