jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
But the constitution is what we go on. And the 2A, which (yes) exists to prevent government from infringing on the right to self defense, does indeed provide some guidance on the matter. It uses words like "keep" (possess), and "bear" (like, walk around with), "arms" (a broad term that can get picked at, but we it's safe to say it doesn't apply to nukes and isn't limited to butter knives), and - because the 2A was written to include a mention of WHY it's there (making sure that nobody in government thinks that the inevitable need for a standing military is an excuse to infringe on individual RKB), it also conveniently provides some context: we're talking about militia-grade arms.
We can dance around the fringes of all of that to split hairs (full auto .50 mounted on your car? hmm), but it doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room where a reasonable person could argue that bearing an arm isn't covered by an amendment that explicitly says the right to do so cannot be infringed.
The constitution (Article III Section 1) vests SCOTUS with the judical power of the US. Using this granted power they determined that the 2A does not define the right. The keep and bear part defines which right we we shall not infringe. The 2A does not apply to other rights like free speech.
Why does the 2A not apply to nukes? The 2A certainly talks about the militia and nukes are a type of weapon used by the military. Where is the line if nuke arms are not part of the 2A and where is this defined in the 2A?
SCOTUS has indicated that history is important, which is why older laws are potentially helpful in determining what the history was like.