Because that’s not what the authors intended. Because words may change meaning over time but intent does not. Because in 1791 “well regulated” meant “well equipped”, not “overseen by the government” and the federalist papers go into great detail backing that up.
We’ve covered this already. If you don’t like the bill of rights, change it. Don’t go looking for loopholes like a sovcit.
That’s Scalia’s interpretation, but that’s not how it was always interpreted. Why do you think they were able to ban machine guns in the first place, and then have it upheld by the Courts for going-on 100 years? It was believed that a “well regulated militia” should refer to actual militias, not just “any random asshole that can afford a gun”. That was the common interpretation for a century.
That’s the trick - it can be interpreted however we want. It’s all made up. It used to mean one thing, then it meant something else.
So, the question is, why did the interpretation change? Did Scalia just really love freedom? Or was there, maybe, another agenda?
Because that’s not what the authors intended. Because words may change meaning over time but intent does not. Because in 1791 “well regulated” meant “well equipped”, not “overseen by the government” and the federalist papers go into great detail backing that up.
We’ve covered this already. If you don’t like the bill of rights, change it. Don’t go looking for loopholes like a sovcit.
That’s Scalia’s interpretation, but that’s not how it was always interpreted. Why do you think they were able to ban machine guns in the first place, and then have it upheld by the Courts for going-on 100 years? It was believed that a “well regulated militia” should refer to actual militias, not just “any random asshole that can afford a gun”. That was the common interpretation for a century.
That’s the trick - it can be interpreted however we want. It’s all made up. It used to mean one thing, then it meant something else.
So, the question is, why did the interpretation change? Did Scalia just really love freedom? Or was there, maybe, another agenda?
That’s also James Madison’s interpretation, per Federalist Paper #46. The same James Madison who coauthored the constitution.
So youre essentially advocating for Orwell’s newspeak, then.