Here is a good piece on the 2A's history (and interpretive history) from a
Few years back.
Again, only talking about the point behind the amendment when it was drafted, to the extent anyone can really figure it out. Never viewed it (or much of the BOR) as some kind of natural right - it was a balance between the need to have a strong national government (federalists) and keeping military power in the hands of the states to prevent that national government from becoming tyrannical (anti-federalists). But very dated, and made a lot more sense when compulsory militia service was part of life.
Anyways, not to argue but don't see how it is natural law based when every free country in its right mind prohibits most gun ownership and the people are no less free.
Agree with you that how to regulate guns should be the focus of discussion. Although I do think it points out the folly of original intent in a modern setting: if the point was to allow "the people" (literally everyone, but really the states) to bear arms to check a powerful standing army controlled by the federal government then surely we all have a right to military grade machine guns with depleted uranium rounds, missiles, VX nerve gas, and nukes, no? I kid.
|
(
In response to this post by Joey Wahoo)
Link: NRA rewrote the 2A
Posted: 06/15/2017 at 06:58AM