From: Matt Jensen (mattj@newsblip.com)
Date: Mon May 14 2001 - 09:25:02 PDT
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > p.s. - You forgot about "well-regulated." :-)
>
> No, I did not. It is irrelevant. The operative portion of
> the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear
> Arms, shall not be infringed." The foregoing portion is a
> statement of one reason *why* it shall not be infringed.
You're only reading the "what" part, and ignoring the "how" part.
"It is irrelevant"? Ken, aren't you the one who just wrote:
> If that can be done, and one amendment stripped of its power,
> then it can be done to others as well. All must be inviolate,
> and evaluated in the same terms.
Yet you want to tell me that the second and third words in the 2nd
amendment are irrelevant and can be ignored.
I don't think any of it can be ignored. But all of it must be
interpreted. Both for what it meant then, and for what it means today.
All of this can be done while being vigilant against oppressive
interpretations. Again, you can't run a government off of a 40K document
without interpretation.
If anything, our interpretations over the years have progressively led to
greater freedom, not less. (The easy example is "DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A.
SANDFORD" to "PLESSY v. FERGUSON" to "BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
TOPEKA.")
-Matt Jensen
http://mattjensen.com
http://NewsBlip.com
Seattle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 14 2001 - 13:15:31 PDT