06-28-2016, 08:01 AM
BTW, it looks to me like citing the 1792 Militia Act is not a good basis on which to support the 2A.
This country long ago ceased depending upon militias to provide for the security of a free state. We now have a large, standing army, and state militias have been superseded by the National Guard. In both the Army and the NG, weapons are provided to the individual, not by him.
Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the individual to provide his own weapons for military service. Therefore, it could reasonably be argued that, since the rationale for creating the 2A is null and void, the "right to keep and bear" is also negated.
This country long ago ceased depending upon militias to provide for the security of a free state. We now have a large, standing army, and state militias have been superseded by the National Guard. In both the Army and the NG, weapons are provided to the individual, not by him.
Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the individual to provide his own weapons for military service. Therefore, it could reasonably be argued that, since the rationale for creating the 2A is null and void, the "right to keep and bear" is also negated.