gcomeau wrote:Amazing how those strict literalists so concerned with original intent always manage to forget the entire first half of the amendment they are so reverent of and that whole part about well regulated militias.
MAD-4A wrote:Which says NOTHING about "members of the 'well regulated militias' only." The first part is a preamble for the anti-gun nuts. The actual phrasing of the Amendment states clearly "shall not be abridged" not "for members of the militia only."
...
Tenshinai wrote:The problem is that interpreting it like that requires that you are unable to understand the difference between complete and incomplete statements.
It is ONE amendment, not 1 and a half that has been written incorrectly by someone barely literate.
And that's not even taking into account that you have to ignore the context of the time it was written. When one of the reasons for independence was the British trying to enforce an absence of any kind of organised military among the locals.
No one has mentioned the failure of even one justice to respond to the 4th circuit's (et al)decision to, indeed, abridge the right of individuals to own semi-automatic "assault-style" rifles. That makes 3 circuits now upholding bans. Not even Clarence Thomas has bothered to request certiorari. AMAZING!