Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_
Maybe I missed something - there always seemed to me to be a clear link that makes the permission to bear arms conditional on the ability to form a militia.
You commented that the militia should exist. I agree. If this is the case, maybe you should say "If you have joined a milita organisation for civil defense, you can bear arms". That would prevent anyone saying "I need it for home defense" or "I want to go hunting". The point should be (to me) if you're not in a milita, the right to bear arms doesn't apply to you.
|
This 'interpretation' would require someone to think that they only have the rights that are afforded to them via the constitution or the government. This is not correct. The 'people' have all, every, unlimited rights. The constitution only provides specific enumerated powers to the federal government.
So, while the 2nd Amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it provides, as it's only singular textual limitation, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
this doesn't say that the right of the militia, or the right of those enrolled in a militia, or even that the right shall not be infringed as long as you enroll in a militia. It say 'the right of the people', plain and simple.