(02-23-2022, 10:47 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(02-22-2022, 02:03 PM)p_rushing Wrote: The right isn't defined because it was meant to give the people the ability to rise up and overthrow the government if needed. It really should be treated as the right to match what the government has. Now there are mass destruction weapons that weren't thought of then but the government should be afraid of the people. The people should not be afraid of the government.

Completely false.  The state constitutions that the 2nd amendment was cribbed from say "For defense of self and of the State."
I agree with the second amendment, but not at all with this recent and innovative interpretation.  Absolutely no one in 1789 was trying to plant seeds of another American revolution.  
They were trying to ensure that there would be a broad base of defense for the form of government they had just settled on at the cost of many of their friends' lives.

Look, Mikey. You're leaving out a huge part of this. The framers of the constitution were specifically trying to safeguard the people FROM THE ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT. They wanted people to be able to compete with a standing army so it could not be used to take away their freedom as it has been done SO many times in the past. Ergo, even though it's clear that the militias were to defend their states from foreign enemies, you are being willfully obtuse as to why there was an emphasis on the 2nd amendment in the first place. Let's recap using a simple dialogue:

Quote:Yo! Fellow countrymen... we won our freedom. We need a way to defend ourselves from outside invaders.

Great idea, pal, but let's not use a standing army. It's been used in the past to take freedom from the people, and we want to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

Good point. How about we use a well-armed militia to defend our state.

That sounds great. Oh, when we do make a standing army, let's put congress in charge, just in case. 

Which part are you leaving out, Mikey?

(Hint: it's underlined).

---