-
Regardless of which version you look at, imo the fact that all start with a "well regulated militia/Militia" makes it pretty clear that the intention of bearing arms was meant in a military context.
Which to me removes any middle ground of personal gun ownership - if your basis for gun ownership is the 2nd Amendment.
Obviously more learned judges have taken a different view over the years.
hugo7-
Well, inasmuch as they were arguing for a Swiss-style citizen army that would obviate the need for a large centrally-controlled military force that could become tyrannical, that's true. There's a reason why so much of the libertarian 2A supporting discourse is quite antagonistic to and distrustful of the centralised power of the federal government.
Edit to add - I don't share their views. I think trying to Britsplain the American constitution to Americans is a losing battle though.
-
Regardless of which version you look at, imo the fact that all start with a "well regulated militia/Militia" makes it pretty clear that the intention of bearing arms was meant in a military context.
Exactly. The USA has a ‘well regulated militia’, it’s called the National Guard. The same National Guard that is defined as ‘the militia’ in US law, and basically serves the same purposes as what was known in the UK until recently as the TA.
h2o
rodan
I wonder how many 2Aers actually know what the 2nd amendment actually says.