Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by mrm14, Jan 24, 2013.
A very interesting read. I've never understood how it's so hard to understand the 2a's intent. But honestly I thin it's not that people misunderstand it. It's that they don't agree wit hit and therefore make attempts to undermine the amendment.
Justice Scalia describes in Heller the "A well regulated......" to be a prefatory clause in legalese.
And he goes on to rule that a prefatory clause, such as the militia clause cannot be used to modify an operative clause. i.e the right to bear clause.
So we have basically the same interpretation from a distinguished professor and a justice of the SCOTUS. That's pretty good company to be in.
That was perfectly clear before I read it. While I didnt need an Educrats view on it, he really didnt spin it, just laid it out as it is written. I bet Lawyers hate guys like him...
I never have seen what's so hard to understand about it. A well trained Militia is needed to protect and secure the Freedom of a State(remember, the Founding Fathers wanted States to be the "power" not the Federal government) from all enemies so they need the freedom to keep and carry firearms that are suitable for military use.
That's why I get so upset over all these folks asking "Why do you NEED a semi auto AR-15?", because they're suitable tools for military use, that's why. Heck, if we could get the '34 NFA thrown out we could have even more suitable tools in the forum of REAL full auto assault weapons, the way the Founders intended in the first place.
Why do you need an AR-15?
deleted by poster