> A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms Some would argue that even som

> A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms Some would argue that even some Framers disagreed with you on this one. Stevens' dissent[0] on DC v Heller was that if the Second Amendment "plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank" how can we interpret it to provide protections beyond a well regulated Militia? What's confounding is evidence that the Framers explicitly did not include broad language. Other state's proposals included language around hunting and self-defense, and they did not make it to the final draft. > Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms [0] PDF: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD