Quote:
Originally Posted by BlissStreet
do you mean:
Because I'm pretty sure there aren't a whole lot of "well regulated militias" around. But, then, that is the plain way it reads.
Don't get me wrong, I like guns and I like to shoot. But, the militias that exist today aren't well regulated and aren't there for the reasons the 2nd amendment was written. Seems like people like to cherry pick the latter half of the amendment, and conveniently forget the first half. I mean, if everyone is so gung ho on the 2nd amendment, why don't have 100's of well regulated militias? Or how come there isn't a massive grass roots movement to change the 2nd amendment to remove the part about militias? Just strikes me as odd that it's written plain as day, yet no one ever quotes the whole thing. I could never figure out how people could support only half of the amendment.
|
IMHO, the entire thing is open to interpretation. For instance, shouldn't we have the right to keep and bear arms so that IF the security of state is endangered, and well-regulated militia can be formed? That's the way I read it.