- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 62,716
- Reaction score
- 44,946
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, heller v DC said it was an individual right, the right of the people, not a militia. The militia act passed in 1790 something (IIRC) kept that the militia was EVERY man of able body, and that well regulated crap? Means in good working order, in olde tymee english
If the supreme court less than a decade ago found that the 2nd is an individual right, then why act like it isn't?
Because the Constitution is a living document and it's opened to be questioned and changed if we agree to it.
I'd rather not let the men from 1790 decide how we live in 2017...or rather guide our way of life with wishy washy not-specific things like the 2nd. There is a lot of data they didn't have that we do to consider. Not to mention things like the scale of our population or the technology behind modern firearms compared to 1790 firearms.
The problem with the 2nd Amendment is how open to interpretation it is and that we still need to challenge it over 200 years later.
If your stance is that you have your right to bear arms in order for self defense from a tyrannical government, then I'd argue that you've already lost that right. This only makes sense if the civilian militia had some form of parity with modern military equipment. So unless you're hoarding hellfire drones in your closet, it doesn't make any sense to me.