Preaching to the Choir

[Bravo Vector Tango]

Concur. (Although I think "rights" are a figment of the imagination, and do not exist in reality.)


If that's true, then why isn't there something to that effect in the 2nd Amendment? Why does it only address security of the State, and not security of the individual?

let us examine the actual linguistics of the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

lets particularly examine "free State"

the free State, surely refers to encompass all the lawful citizens and their elected representatives, as one body. indivisible. the elected representatives the apparatus of the will of the free people, by design. the free states, then encompassing the union of the United States of America.

Alternatively, I think a "free State" could infer a "free state of nature" in context. However, I think under no circumstances, does the "free State" allude to the "State" as a reference to Central Government as we commonly see it referenced today (Example: The State VS. Heller).

Edit to add: the more i think about it, the more I align with it meaning "Free state of nature" because that is exactly what the documents establish across the board, the rights of the people, to live in a free state of nature - outside the persecution of an overreaching, tyrannical government.