Exactly. I don't know what was so "ambigous" about the language.
Every time someone makes this argument, I laugh. It's one of those things that people proudly use to defend their point of view without realizing that the vocabulary used actually makes them dead wrong.The militia, in the traditional sense, is the entirety of able-bodied citizens of military age - anyone required to join the selective service.Well-regulated has traditionally had the meaning of "well-equipped" as it a "well-equipped group of armed people of military age".You can go on and on about how that was not the intent of the founders or it's not practical in this day and age, but you have no legal, linguistic, nor logical ground to stand on.
And you do?
Tom, Alex C. was there and knows exactly what we meant to say when we wrote this thing. Get off his back.
Well said, sir. Many a time I paced from the well-regulated laboratory to the well-regulated kitchen in my well-regulated estate, wondering if future generations would be well-regulated enough to understand our words. Msrs. Scalia and yourself give me hope.
Cabrera nails it. Anyone who struggles with this should really try reading the opinion before they make themselves sound silly. If the lengthy treatment that Scalia gives the issue isn't convincing enough, you should know that a consensus of legal scholars (that includes well-known liberals such as Akhil Amar, Sandy Levinson, and Larry Tribe) has long agreed that the 2nd Amendment is properly read to be an individual right and not a collective one. Not to say that there aren't a few out there who disagree, but they've been known to fudge their scholarship a bit (see, e.g., Michael Bellesiles). The Supreme Court just officially recognized what the scholarly world has largely agreed upon for some time. Those of you who like your Bill of Rights interpreted broadly should applaud the Court for its consistency here. The 2nd Amendment should be no less important than the 1st or the 4th. I know Rick is a fan of "links," but you'll have to just check this one out for yourselves. As they say, hear me now, and believe me later. Also, Morin's depiction of Justice Kennedy is atrocious. It hardly captures his smug imperiousness nor his sense of entitlement. He does make Scalia look like a child molester, though, and the vaguely racist cartoon of Thomas is always a classy touch. So, you know, I'll give him a B for effort.
It's Sanford and Laurence to you.
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.