Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Argument: The second clause of the 2nd Amendment is broader than the first
From Debatepedia
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 16:34, 2 April 2008 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision (13:18, 21 June 2010) (edit) Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs) (→Parent debate) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Parent debate== | ==Parent debate== | ||
| - | *[[Debate:US Second Amendment]] | + | *[[Debate: Right to bear arms in the US]] |
| - | + | ||
| ==Supporting quotes== | ==Supporting quotes== | ||
| *[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. March 19th, 2008] - "JUSTICE GINSBURG: If you were thinking of "the people," what those words meant when the Second Amendment was adopted, it was males between the ages of what -- 17 and 45? People who were over 45 had no --they didn't serve in the militia. | *[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. March 19th, 2008] - "JUSTICE GINSBURG: If you were thinking of "the people," what those words meant when the Second Amendment was adopted, it was males between the ages of what -- 17 and 45? People who were over 45 had no --they didn't serve in the militia. | ||
Current revision
[Edit]
Parent debate
[Edit]
Supporting quotes
- Oral arguments in DC vs. Heller. March 19th, 2008 - "JUSTICE GINSBURG: If you were thinking of "the people," what those words meant when the Second Amendment was adopted, it was males between the ages of what -- 17 and 45? People who were over 45 had no --they didn't serve in the militia.
- MR. GURA: Well, certainly, there were many people who were not eligible for militia duty, or not subject to militia service, who nevertheless were expected to, and oftentimes did, in fact, have guns.
- JUSTICE SCALIA: Which shows that maybe you're being unrealistic in thinking that the second clause is not broader than the first. It's not at all uncommon for a legislative provision or a constitutional provision to go further than is necessary for the principal purpose involved.
- The principal purpose here is the militia, but the -- but the second clause goes beyond the militia and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
- Now, you may say the kind of arms is colored by the militia. But it speaks of the right of the people. So why not acknowledge that it's -- it's broader than the first clause?"
