Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
|
To quote only part of the sentence is to mis-quote it, if the missing part changes the sense of the part quoted - as is the case here.
The right to bear arms follows the assertion that a well-regulated militia is key to the security of the state and should be understood in that context. However, gradually, successive Supreme Court judgments have tended to view it in isolation and in line with their perception of their contemporary context. This approach is defended by criticising the alternative as “originalism”.
There are sound arguments for reinterpretation of a constitution for each new age but personally I’m sceptical whether it’s legitimate to do that via a panel of judges who are appointed for life and free to make rulings on the original text based on their political leanings. If a constitution is to be reinterpreted I think that should be done by direct political process over which the electorate has direct control. If the original meaning and intent of the right to bear arms no longer holds relevance in the 21st century then it should be debated and re-written, rather than leaving the 18th century text open to whatever meaning the current Supreme Court wishes to give it.