Originally posted by DSMoneypit
View Post
Madison (and Mason) indeed proposed it primarily to bolster state militias. Remember, that the 2A was an anti-federalist measure and, the well-regulated militia clause can be argued as clearly defining the rationale for gun ownership. After all, these were not men that minced words, and if they didn’t intend to qualify the amendment, they wouldn’t have included the militia clause. As they did include it, it’s therefore reasonable to conclude this.
Regardless, it’s not logical to conclude that any civilian force, no matter how armed-to-the-teeth, could ever, at this point, present even a tiny threat to the government. Thus, the militia point as a bulwark against government tyranny is rendered moot.
Comment