Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dave Markowitz's Blog O'Stuff about computing, shooting, RKBA, and whatever else I feel like ranting about.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
3 comments:
Dave, as a furriner there's one aspect of your Federal "right to keep and bear arms" that I haven't seen analysed, and I don't know why not. I believe the 2nd Amendment wasn't creating in a vacuum, and that the environment in which a law, statute, whatever was created sheds light on the meaning and intent of the law, etc. That Federal Constitution was created as being overarching and supplementary to the constitutions of your founding (13, was it?) states. Your founding fathers were fairly careful to ensure that Federal powers didn't overpower State's Rights. That implies that the intent of the Federal Constitution could be (maybe/possibly/perhaps) supplementary to the State's Constitutions.
So... what do the State's Constitutions say about the right to keep and bear arms? In particular, what did they say at/before/just after the 2nd Amendment was enacted? Given that they were the environment in which it was enacted, then what can one say was the intent of the Federal 2nd Amendment?
I see a lot of confusion about "it was really just for the National Guard", but was the "militia" just and always intended to be just a supplementary argument to all those already covered in State's Constitutions?
Hi Don,
That's a fair question which merits a post of its own.
Forthcoming. ;)
Post a Comment