I don't particularly, but I also understand its history and why its in the
Constitution. Until recently it has never, ever been understood as a blanket right to own weapons of all kinds. Never. Even in the Heller case. For the entire history of the Republic it has been possible to restrict them in various contexts. Further the militia arguments make no sense in the context of the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903, nor in the context of Article 1, section 8 or Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution giving the Congress and President authority over the militias of the several states. States have their own laws in this regard and in regard to more mundane stuff mandating certain ownership restrictions.
None of this violates the second amendment, the simplistic arguments of these demonstrators to the contrary.
|
(
In response to this post by Lupos)
Posted: 01/20/2020 at 1:01PM