06-24-2016, 08:44 AM
(06-23-2016, 11:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It seems clear to you but the vast majority of constitutional scholars and the supreme court disagree. If you study the language of the times it is clear that the framers intended military power to rest with the people and not just with a central government. Several of the framers flat out say this in other writings. It's fine that you disagree, just know that your opinion is not shared by most people who have studied the issue intently.
Sure. I pointed out the opinions that matter most - those of the courts - disagree with my own. I have not researched the opinions of constitutional scholars or linguists, presumably those most likely to study such an issue.
The framers intent for military power rest with the people seems preserved by various elements of our government today - we don't have a "junta" and various civilians exercise considerable control over the military, including the civilian "commander in chief." But it also seems clear, as I stated, the framers wanted that military power resting with the people "well regulated." Arguing against licensing, registrations, minimum standards for arm ownership, and firearms training in the name of the second amendment seems counter to the framers' intent - guaranteeing the preservation of the free state via a well regulated militia. Joe Terrorist, Jane Housewife, and Billy the Lunatic each being able to buy a machine gun and six cases of ammo at 7-11 and go out in the parking lot and start choosing targets seems pretty Un-American to me. How does it serve a well-regulated militia and how does it preserve the free State?
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
