Quote:
Originally Posted by Llarry
But what about the "well-regulated militia" verbiage in the 2A?
I'm not some "ban all the guns" liberal BTW: I qualified in the M14 in 1966 at Marine Corps OCS in Quantico. During my 25-year Navy career I had minimal contact with firearms; I did, however, enjoy watching the USS New Jersey fire her 16" main battery  and also enjoyed watch the Navy 20mm Vulcan CIWS fire.
While I personally feel the personal ownership of "assault rifles" (AR-15 and the like) is ridiculous, I do understand that the reality is that there are a lot of Americans who feel very differently. My opinion is that the 2A is adequate as written but has been unfortunately interpreted. While I understand that is unpopular in this thread, I suspect quite a few citizens agree with me. Many key judges do not. And I agree that a new amendment clarifying or restricting gun ownership has a snowball's chance in hell. |
As others have said the point of the 2A is for people to have the means/ability to stand up to a tyrannical government, as our founding fathers had just done. I doubt the “well regulated” verbiage in the 2A would refer to the government’s ability to regulate. That would defeat the purpose. The 2A also states “the right of the people”, not the right of the militia. At least that's my uneducated opinion