In your print article, you mention that the idea of a militia is out of date. That may seem so today with our full-time professional army. Even though the probability is small for the foreseeable future, this country could fall under a tyrannical federal government. The states have been reduced to having very little political, economic, and military power, so the populace (some of which are armed) is about the only counterbalance.
Even if we did not have a second amendment, where else in the constitution does it allow the federal government to regulate arms? During ratification, the most prominent argument against the bill of rights was that it would be interpreted as a laundry list of rights -- the federal government could regulate anything but those items specifically restricted by the bill of rights. Unfortunately, that's virtually the case now.
For someone like you who is so picky about words, I'm surprised that you read the first part of the second amendment as some sort of restriction on the right, rather than an explanatory clause.
January 8, 2009
Posted on June 29 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In your print article, you mention that the idea of a militia is out of date. That may seem so today with our full-time professional army. Even though the probability is small for the foreseeable future, this country could fall under a tyrannical federal government. The states have been reduced to having very little political, economic, and military power, so the populace (some of which are armed) is about the only counterbalance.
Even if we did not have a second amendment, where else in the constitution does it allow the federal government to regulate arms? During ratification, the most prominent argument against the bill of rights was that it would be interpreted as a laundry list of rights -- the federal government could regulate anything but those items specifically restricted by the bill of rights. Unfortunately, that's virtually the case now.
For someone like you who is so picky about words, I'm surprised that you read the first part of the second amendment as some sort of restriction on the right, rather than an explanatory clause.
On The big gun decision