| Mr Khan said: You note that the word "state" comes up a lot in those articles. I misspoke on the point of philosophy. What i meant was that systems founded to ordain or preserve a certain philosophy cannot endure forever. The specific balance that the Founders struck in the late 18th century needed to be revised in the Civil War period, again in the early 20th century, and now the balance needs to be re-struck. The idea endures, to be certain, but the systems are not so inherently bound to the idea that the Founders' governmental frameworks should be held as sacrosanct. |
I do, but I also note that it is not for the sole protection of states that people can have guns. The only consistent theme in all of those is the right to keep and bear arms. One function may be to defend the state, others may be to defend yourself and your property, or as one even notes, recreational use.
My point was that it's not at all absurd to say that in the original context, the 2nd amendment was not designed to only protect the right to have a gun when you're in a militia, but also for your own personal protection and use. Again, you can argue that the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant, but I do not think the original meaning of the amendment is nearly as ambiguous as some say.
Thank you for the clarification. So would you say that there is an objective truth that the system has been working towards, or is it something that is entirely dependant upon society at the current time?
