DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**constanyiskancho** · 10-20-2005, 11:23 PM

Glad to see that a few of you share my general approach to interpreting the US Constitution - as I understand it, all powers not explicitly delimited to the Federal government belong to the States.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I took care to word my view precisely. I stated that I don't see the 2nd Amendment as a blanket endorsement of the right to bear arms entirely. Clearly arms are required for a militia to exist.

However, one thing I will add here is that the 2nd Amendment clearly and explicitly gives the Federal government the right to regulate that militia. And if the right to bear arms is understood or interpreted under this right of a well armed militia, then the Federal government clearly has constitutional authority to regulate those same arms. It doesn't seem logical to interpret one without the other.

10-20-2005, 11:23 PM	#10
constanyiskancho Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 402 Senior Member	Glad to see that a few of you share my general approach to interpreting the US Constitution - as I understand it, all powers not explicitly delimited to the Federal government belong to the States. As for the 2nd Amendment, I took care to word my view precisely. I stated that I don't see the 2nd Amendment as a blanket endorsement of the right to bear arms entirely. Clearly arms are required for a militia to exist. However, one thing I will add here is that the 2nd Amendment clearly and explicitly gives the Federal government the right to regulate that militia. And if the right to bear arms is understood or interpreted under this right of a well armed militia, then the Federal government clearly has constitutional authority to regulate those same arms. It doesn't seem logical to interpret one without the other.
	Quote