I
decided to become a Constitutional Scholar. Having examined the
Second Amendment, I make the following observations based of Justice
Scalia's admonition that only the word is important. You cannot try
to guess what the writer was thinking based on other individual
writings, such as the Federalist Papers, because the exact
constitutional writing was approved by all signers, after much
debate.
Conclusion:
The amendment is about establishing a militia and not militias. It
clearly states the singular case. The Revolutionary War was clearly
won by the militia (Minutemen) and our country could not have
afforded a standing army, like the British or French. We have
abided by the amendment by establishing the National Guard.
The
second part of the amendment, about the right to bear arms not being
infringed, is of course a necessity for a militia. The arms referred
to obviously must include scattergun, flintlock or musket, sword, and
bayonet. It would not include nukes, surface-to-air and air to
surface missiles, flame throwers, bazookas, gatling guns and others .
Consequently the amendment is quite limited. There is no reference
to hunting or individual protection.
Have
no fear. I will not accept an appointment to the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment