Handgun ban...unconstitutional?
I'm trying to get my arms around this as objectively as possible, and every time I look at it I come to one conclusion:
Right to bear arms means right to bear arms.
There are a lot of very scholarly arguments that the Second Amendment is only about arming oneself as it relates to a "well-regulated militia" but it simply doesn't pass the reality test to me to believe that the second "right" enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" is not an individual right at all, but some vague "collective" right.
Am I wrong?
Right to bear arms means right to bear arms.
There are a lot of very scholarly arguments that the Second Amendment is only about arming oneself as it relates to a "well-regulated militia" but it simply doesn't pass the reality test to me to believe that the second "right" enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" is not an individual right at all, but some vague "collective" right.
Am I wrong?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ptgustan on -
The "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment appeals to Collectivists of every stripe. Why? Because they know there can never be a collectivist society when individualists can arm themselves. We that hold to anything resembling a Bastion of Reason are the new Kulaks.
-
Permalink Reply by wdporter on -
So it looks like by a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court agrees with this assessment:
http://www.logipundit.com/2008/06/dc-gun-ban-ruled-unconstitutional...
Thank the Dear Lord.
© 2009 Created by wdporter
