Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point was not about the limits or extent of state authority. My point is that though you seem to think that by "militia" the framers were refering to whatever unruly mob might show up on the spur of the moment to protect the commonweal, and that the framers meant to ensure that these villagers had not only torches and pitchforks but guns as well, in point of fact the colonial militias were organized affairs that were "regulated" by state law requiring, e.g., regular muster and things of that sort. Colonial militias looked more like today's National Guard than you seem to think. And if you don't believe me, read Miller.
|
That was your smaller point. Your bigger point, I think, was that the proposed SF ban on guns would be constitutional, and that is what I was referring to.
As for the intent, like I said before, I could care less. Maybe its just the corporate lawyer in me, but as I'm sure you can imagine, there are countless drafts that are exchanged between parties before a definitive agreement is reached, and what matters is the words that appear on that page, because, in the end, that is the language all could live with. Some of the language is crystal clear. Other language is left open intentionally, usually because one or more of the parties think they have an advantage in keeping that way. To try to reconstruct what the various parties were thinking at the time is futile. And all that is just for a basic contract.
