Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
The tyranny bit isn't a false assumption and having the means at hand to fight a tyrant who has usurped Federal authority is why it's part of the second.
Would be doesn't matter, but is does. If we are ever in actual danger of being under a tyrant's boot, firearms would be an excellent tool in defending our homes. Pretty sure Scalia would concur.
|
If that was the intent, it would have been part of the wording. It's just not there.