Post #3964 by g0177325 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (26)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

I heard an eye-opening statement today on C-SPAN, made by Michael Waldman, author of the just-published book "The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America". He stated the the original meaning of the
"right to bear arms" as used in the Second Amendment was as a "term of art" with the same meaning as the "right to serve in the military"! That is, the meaning was NOT the same as the more superficial dictionary definition that would be implied if the verb "bear" was simply taken to be equivalent to "carry".

I had not heard of this argument before. If it's valid, then it seems to me that the debate on the 2nd amendment would be ended once and for all.

So, is the argument valid?

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (26)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.