Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
No, the duty to serve in the militia in order to defend the country and the government from foreign invasion and from insurrection.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The idea was to have each state organize a militia, comprised of all able bodied men between the ages of (I think) 17 and 47. This was to be in lieu of a standing army like Britain's, an army they had been dealing with for a very long time and were, therefore, more than a little suspicious of.
These militias were used on three significant occasions. The first two were to put down Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and The Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Both of these rebellions were tax revolts. (Sound familiar?) The third was to fight the British invaders in 1812. So, it could be argued that the 2nd Amendment was actually created in part to protect a tyrannical government.
And, as a practical matter, do you really think that a bunch of Bushmaster-toting "sovereign citizen" yobs would have a chance against the US government if it decided to become "tyrannical"? And who defines what's tyrannical? Teabaggers?
John
|
Strange you'd label the founding fathers as a Tyrannical government.
"
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is also included in the text. You might be of the opinion that this only holds to a state militia, but the amendment is not interpreted that way.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
Whether you think the second amendment has been interpreted incorrectly and does not follow the intentions of the founding fathers (Your opinion, fine.) The fact is, that in law it is interpreted to support personal defense.