Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
Have you? Especially the part about a "Well regulated militia."
|
Still beating that dead horse, eh? Maybe you should get a gun too.
First, "regulated" at that time did not mean what it largely means today. There is plenty of documentation, which I am not going to post here yet again, that "well regulated" at that time meant in proper working order and functioning the way it should.
Second, it has been well established under law that the second part of the amendment is independent of, and not conditional to, the first part.
Many top liberal law experts who don't like the 2nd Amendment have stated that it is nonetheless an unconditional legal right. For example:
Quote:
During a recent appearance on Newsmax TV, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said the Second Amendment is an “absurd thing” in our constitution and that our legal framework needs to be adjusted “to create a presumption against gun ownership instead of a presumption in favor of gun ownership.”
"If I could write the Bill of Rights over again, I would skip amendment number two. We’re the only country in the world that puts in our Constitution the right to bear arms. It’s an absurd thing to be in our Constitution, but it’s in our Constitution. We have to live with it."
|
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-constitution/
