2nd Amendment Supreme Court Answer…
Transsylvania Pheonix came up with a brilliant line of questioning regarding the upcoming Supreme Court decision on what exactly is meant by the term “the people” with regard to the 2nd Amendment.
The argument to be decided is whether or not the term “the people” in this case means “the people” as individual entities, as in independent persons, as in citizens, period, as opposed to the agrgument brought up that “the people” in the 2nd Amendment has to do with a group of people as defined by the term “a well-regulated militia”, thusly meaning whoever the government chooses.
Here’s the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Here’s Transsylvania Pheonix’s argument:
When the first amendment says “the people” have a right to assemble it means all the people and not just government-sanctioned organizations. Right?
When the fourth amendment says “the people” are not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, that means all the people and not just whomever the government decides. Right?
When the fifth amendment says “no person” shall be put into double jeopardy or be forced to testify against himself, “person” means everyone and not just whomever the government decides. Right?
When the eighth amendment says cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted, that applies to everyone and not just whomever the government decides. Right?
So why, when the second amendment says “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms do some people (mostly on the left) think it’s meant to apply only to the people whom the government selects?
 |
|
that question is almost as good as that photo!