04-14-2018, 02:50 PM
JASmith Wrote:I have seen speculation that the reason the Second Amendment was worded so tersely is that nearly everyone at the time felt the RKBA is so glaringly obvious that no explanation was needed.That's been brought up before. The problem with the idea that hunting and individual defense were not noted as reasons for the RKBA because they were "glaringly obvious" is that -- just having fought the War for Independence -- the need for a militia, and defense of the State, would have been far more glaringly obvious.
Yet, when it came time for Madison to put quill to parchment, collective defense was the sole reason cited for having the RKBA, while individual defense and hunting were omitted.
JASmith Wrote:While that may be what we would today call an excuse, the wording has allowed anti-gunzealots and trolls plenty of room for mischief.Indeed. There would've been less room for such "mischief" if the 2A had not linked the RKBA to the militia, or State defense, and just said "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Not that that would've prevented any of the infringements that have occurred...
