Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2133606" data-attributes="member: 5183">It looks like we posted almost simultaneously!  For further study, consider the internal inconsistency of the Miller reasoning as you quoted above:There are so many glaring problems with this reasoning that it is hard to decide where to begin!  Even if you grant the "nominative absolute" argument with respect to the first clause of the Second Amendment (and I see no reason to dispute it), it still does not permit reasoning the Second Amendment in reverse.  That would be: "If the arms in question question are not military arms, then the right of the people to keep and bear them may be infringed."  Or, more generally: "If the people are not members of a well regulated militia, then their right to keep and bear arms may be infringed."  This basically sums up the argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right; and it is internally, gramatically, logically false.But to this internal argument we further add the clear language of the Ninth Amendment to find that the Second Amendment, like all of the bill of rights, must be construed in every case as broadly as possible to protect the unnamed rights of the citizens, for the Ninth Amendment makes clear that the bill of rights does not cover them all!  Therefore, if the justices "cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees", then they still must overrule any legislation that encroaches into an unclear area!  This, then, is further bolstered by the clear language of the Tenth Amendment which specifies that the power of the federal government must be construed as narrowly as possible, while that of the States and the People must be construed as broadly as possible.  There simply is no Constitutional argument to support a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment.</blockquote>

Verification