Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
There are many, MANY people who disagree with you. And if it's a justification, why don't they justify any other amendment? I mean, a free press is certainly necessary to the security of a free state. Why didn't they preface the 1st with that justification? The logical conclusion is that they put that phrase in there for a very specific reason, which was to explain that the gun-rights amendment was not a national suicide pact, and that if you want to have a gun you have to be in some sort of well regulated militia.
|
I don't understand why they would want to insure our right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from our government and at the same time give that government the ability, without having to amend the constitution, to regulate that right away.
Do you think they intended us to all form well regulated militias outside of government control? If the definition of "well regulated" is determined by the very government that we are armed to protect ourselves from then what is the point of having the amendment in the first place?
I believe they intended to insure that we had the right to bear arms to overthrow a corrupt government like they just did as well as form well regulated militias.