NYT: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

[killerzX]

badgenome said:

Aielyn said:

And if you pay close attention, the constitution wasn't granting the right to bear arms to permit self-defense within the country. It was rather explicit - it was to permit defense of country from those who might invade. In other words, it was permitting a reserve army - also known as a "well-regulated militia" (hence the use of that term in the amendment).

If you have an anti-gun agenda and ignore all context, then sure. However, it is abundantly clear that people of the time interpreted the right to firearm ownership as being undivorceable from one's right to self-defense against both brigands and tyrants.

but dont you know that the 2nd amendment is a individual right, its a collective right....  but the 1st amendment is umm.. an individual right... groups of people dont have the right to free speech.

 

dont you know this.