Continuing from the preceding post:
Even with things directed at specialties, it is hardly seen unwise to seek the view of the fresh external eyes of a layman. On the other hand although a constitution is like a manual for a device with dangerous consequences if miss used, that manual was written for the public. Even if that manual also contains some parts designated for sophisticated users, the average person should not need more than careful reading and self control to follow the instructions of a manual when starting at the root. Likewise, here we are not differing on the extent to which something should be applied in this discussion about the Second Amendment but on its core meaning. Also the opposite side did not make any argument showing why the meaning it claims needed to be expressed in that manner for one to assume there was a need for a different start here. That of course goes on top of the need to justify the existence of making a part like that for only a clarifying purpose there especially in short amendments showing focus on executionary use like those in the Bill of Rights to begin with. Even where there is much less needed cautionary approach than that of writing a constitution, how often have you seen in the operating or assembly instructions of a manual a part intended for no execution like the other side argues for the part before the second comma of the Amendment?
By the way, usually when someone suggests a meaning that is not the direct one like this court did with the word "being" in the Amendment that lacking gets offset by that meaning being the more obvious one but in this case the court has neither.
No comments:
Post a Comment