Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (363034)	12/16/2007 12:11:49 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1576711

I think those justices may change their mind, if DC becomes an bloody armed camp, with it's many disgruntled citizens of color.. They have to go to work there every day!

To: Road Walker who wrote (363034)	12/16/2007 12:54:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576711

How does a mere comma do that? According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one “prefatory” and the other “operative.” On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don’t really get down to business until they start talking about “the right of the people ... shall not be infringed.” A bit more than preliminary throat clearing. It provides justification for the operative clause. Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary. "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", is NOT the same as "militia's should be protected", or "the right of the states to raise and arm militias shall not be infringed". "Because" provides explanation and justification, but doesn't change the point that rights of the people, are rights for individuals. If the constitution wanted to protect state formed militias it would have been "the states shall have the power to organize and arm militias" or something like that. In any case, by the common custom at the time the 2nd amendment was written and ratified, and by current US law, regular people are members of the militia. (Well most women aren't but other amendments and constitutional interpretations about the rights of women might protect them as well, and its not really needed because it isn't "the right of militia members", but rather the right of people whether or not they happen to currently be a member of a militia.)