Quote (TheBadLuitenant @ May 7 2013 07:38am)
Right, I understand. But didn't the Heller decision soley emphasize "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
Perhaps not, but if that is the case it smacks of judicial activism.
But I'm just a caveman, your world frightens and confuses me.
The Heller decision indeed confirmed what has been known all along: that the right to bear arms is an individual right, no different than the right to free speech or to practice religion.
Quote (JEB90 @ May 7 2013 10:39am)
One, that's an argument for an actual militia, not an argument against gun control. Two, weren't you talking about original intent rather than contemporaneous understanding? (nice word of the day, by the way) Three, that's the kind of tortured logic that gives people pause about the judiciary (similarly to the Obamacare ruling, to be honest). We have about as much chance of flapping our arms and flying to the moon as being called up for the militia. And, if by some miracle, we were, the first thing they'd do is pass out weapons.
I can see how you would construe the argument that way, but when all men were considered potential members of the militia, we're down to semantics. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. Contemporaneous to the founders, not our contemporaries. So things like the Federalist Papers are what I was alluding to. I have no idea what logic you think is tortured, the Constitution does not lay out any group rights, it lays out individual rights. And militias were expected to provide their own arms.