Many anti-rights (that is how i shall furthermore refer to such individuals) people claim that the second amendment was meant only for the militia, and, with the national guard OBVIOUSLY the militia we don't need the right on the 'books' anymore.
my question is this...
if the 2nd was written only for the Militia, and has no direction towards average citizens (who are obviously NOT the unorganized militia) why would they write one in the first place? would they really expect the 'militia' to be sent to battle WITHOUT weapons?
just a quick thought i had perusing a post earlier...
my question is this...
if the 2nd was written only for the Militia, and has no direction towards average citizens (who are obviously NOT the unorganized militia) why would they write one in the first place? would they really expect the 'militia' to be sent to battle WITHOUT weapons?
just a quick thought i had perusing a post earlier...