Exhibits/debate/points/Woozle/2015/10/04/204803

<hide> <let save name=debate-point-summary>It seems likely that a small change in the balance of the Supreme Court's dominant ideology could shift it towards agreeing with the common-sense interpretation.</let> <let save name=debate-point-parent>Exhibits/debate/points/Woozle/2015/10/04/193800</let> <let save name=debate-point-type>pro</let> <let save name=debate-point-details>Nate McD quotes Justice Stephens:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest by the Framers in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons, is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. The majority fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons.

</let>

<let save name=debate-point-req-all val="" /> </hide><exec mod=debate-mw func=ShowDebateData />