re: #173 goddamnedfrank

The second says that a well regulated militia is necessary, not arms. It says that the existence of a free state is predicated on the right to bear arms. It makes no claims as to absolutes, and a strict reading can easily limit it to such arms as can be born, distinguishing then from ordinance.

Anyway, the point is that the Court has moved steadily away from caring about authorial intent, which is the only reasonable way to move forward as a society. We can argue that this causes negative impacts in certain cases, as I definitely would with the ubiquity of modern gun violence, but that’s another issue.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what the Supreme Court says. I can read, even if they can’t. The 2nd says nothing about personal protection at all, only that “The People” (collectively) must be able to “Keep and bear arms”—the kind of arms that can protect the security of the state. That’s changed since 1787.