3 ms·
That does seem like a justifiable interpretation, and I'm inclined to agree. They mentioned militia for a reason. And it makes sense -- if the point of arming
by rootusrootus 5y ago
That does seem like a justifiable interpretation, and I'm inclined to agree. They mentioned militia for a reason. And it makes sense -- if the point of arming the citizenry is as a check on federal tyranny, then a militia is how it will have to happen. The idea that the 2A is about self-defense seems a very recent interpretation.
- agensaequivocum 5y agoNot exactly: > 7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people of any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;... * The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents (December 18,1787)