21 Apr 2021 1:07 pm
You mean similar to the way liberals want to expand every clause and amendment...except the 2nd.Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑ But Cons insist on strict construction.....with the exception of that frivolous intro to the 2nd...
An interpretation which will be extinguished the minute GOP Presidents pandering to a dwindling base run out of SCOTUS nominees eager to trade firearms victims for fetuses....
Now...a brief English lesson related to the wording of the 2nd;
The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as an "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—is a prefatory clause
Justice Scalia, who wrote the Heller ruling, thought it made no sense to treat the prefatory clause as the only reason for the right to keep and bear arms rather than one of the reasons. He felt such treatment nullified the operative clause and, therefore, we could not make the right contingent on militia service.
And you really should look at the definition of militia; all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. Also, according to the expert from CNN;
"Regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, wel-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/u ... Aug_11.pdf