Whatever old man. You are losing it.
The Second Amendment says: "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." Until June, the question was: Is the right guaranteed to individuals and unconnected with military service, or guaranteed only to states as they exercise their right to maintain militias? The court held, 5-4, for the former view.An obviously mentally impaired columnist then goes on to assert that without this ambiguity, state legislatures are now burdened with having to conform to some weird kind of 2nd Amendment that only has one true meaning, not the old tried and true what-the-hell-ever-we-want-it-to-mean, meaning.
And as Napoleon said (sort of), stupidity in politics is not really interesting.
If you like it, link it | 2 Comments:
So, Good ole' George thinks that SCOTUS reluctantly restoring the 2A as written is "reinventing" it?
WRONG! The 2A was reinvented (bastardized) into the collective perversion by the likes of George Will! The court is half-right (5 to 4 vote; we still have some real idiots for Justices, such as Darth Vader Ginsburg). They left a lot of wiggle room for infringements.
Would George like it if the meaning of the 1A was just as "ambiguous", so states could tell him to shut up? Hell, no! He'd blow a gasket!
I agree. George Will has lost it; he's drifted way left since 2000. And I guess he never read the Congressional definition of militia, nor could he name any Bill of Rights reference to the rights of the people that has been confined to the collective--because none have.
Post a Comment