ChrisL68
Riley Skinner
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 31,273
- Reaction score
- 3,742
The clear language of the clause is vague and general.
There was discussion about making it more specific and it didn't happen. And clearly there were people arguing at the time of framing that the power should be widespread.
So I am sorry but you are just wrong.
The clear language is less ambiguous than say the 2nd amendment, which does say that the right to bear arms is so that militias could be formed.
There was discussion about making it more specific and it didn't happen. And clearly there were people arguing at the time of framing that the power should be widespread.
So I am sorry but you are just wrong.
The clear language is less ambiguous than say the 2nd amendment, which does say that the right to bear arms is so that militias could be formed.
Last edited: