Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
There is an arguement that the second amendment only applies to militias. This arguement states that the second amendment only provides for weapons for military purposes.
Alito is pointing out that that arguement is silly. The dissent opinion and the petitioner's opinion both point to maintaining a right to own a gun to go hunting. Alito is saying that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that it is ok to own guns to hunt and then say that the second amendment only applies to military weapon needs.
|
why can't you have it both ways?
The <other> reading of the 2nd A. unequivocally upholds the right to bear arms in a militia, but that interpretation would in no way RESTRICT it usage for other purposes. Under that interprestation the decision of non-milita uses from firearms would have to be regualted from other context.
Btw... I haven't read the decision ... how does it specifically apply to handguns or howitzers or nukes or any other form of "arms"? THe constitution CLEARLY does NOT say ALL arms, whether or not it is for militias, right? It also clearly does NOT preclude any specific arms.. it leave the determination of any such lines for elsewhere. So does this decision attempt to clarify that line (what constitutes acceptable "arms") ?