[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There’s that pesky comma, though. Grammatically speaking the intent of the 2nd Amendment is not crystal clear, and that’s always been the problem. A strict, constructionist reading arguably shows only that it permits the existence of citizens’ militia and that “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” is only a figurative reference to militias.
I don’t know how the Court will decide this. My guess is that it’s stacked with enough right-wingers that they’ll rule in favor of a Wild West interpretation but you never know. I don’t really care, personally.
[/QUOTE]
You know, if it said anything besides “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” I might believe your interpretation. The commas are a weak source of information at best - which one were you referring to specifically? Two different versions of Article II of the First Amendment were ratified by the states and by Congress, each with different punctuation.
The way I see it, the first half of the amendment establishes that the second half is so instituted because of the need for a militia - I don’t think too many people will argue with this. But it does not then go on to assert any right of the states to have militias, but of the people to keep and bear arms. I honestly don’t see what is so hard to understand about this.
I don’t know why you think a constructionist reading would imply a collective right and not an individual one. The opening phrase establishes a circumstance that gives reason to what follows, and the declarative clause asserts a right of the people that “shall not be infringed.” That the opening phrase establishes a justification does not imply any restriction on the scope of the declaration, unless you presume such to be the intent, which seems rather at odds with the idea of constructionist interpretation.
Further, I have to take issue with your characterization of the pro-rights view as the “Wild West interpretation.” What exactly does the right of individuals to be armed have to do with the “Wild West”? We’re debating a serious civil rights issue here, not some Hollywood fantasy. :dubious:
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I can see their point of view; they feel if they don’t take an absolute view on the issue, that gun control advocates will use a procedure like this to get their foot in the door and then start chipping away at further gun ownership rights. But I think it’s also true that by taking some an extreme stance, anti-gun control groups are helping to create opposition to their position among the undecided genral public.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is a pretty insightful view of the issue - rights advocates like myself tend towards the absolutist view to counter the alarmingly authoritarian views held by some in the opposition. There’s a bit of reactionism there, but it’s hard not to react when you have some extremely vocal people trying to tell you that you shouldn’t be allowed to own anything except low-powered, low-capacity hunting rifles, and even then you should be licensed, registered and watched because even wanting to own a gun probably makes you dangerous and unstable. :dubious:
But on the other hand, I also feel that an absolute view of civil rights is an ideal in itself, and that any measures supposed to improve safety that degrade or impair the ability of the innocent to exercise their liberty are odious and should be resisted. I don’t think it’s right to punish everybody for the misdeeds of a few, and that’s what I see most gun control as doing. I know ideals aren’t always realistic, but that’s the philosophical position I’m coming from.
); although he used the terms in reference to hunting rifles. In terms of self-defence, a gun that can scare off, and if necessary wound or perhaps kill, a person in ordinary street clothes at short range under the relatively low-performance conditions of the average living room is probably towards the low end of the handguns (and hunting rifles) now being sold.