04-18-2018, 06:50 AM
stanc Wrote:Actually, the discussion was about the accuracy of the quoted article. Nice try at evading the issue, though.
Again you evade the question. If the 2A was meant to cover self defense, why does it only address defense of the state?
It would've required adding only a couple of words, as was done in the Pennsylvania and Vermont RKBA:
Pennsylvania (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Stan, I've seen you state this so many times, in so many "state" arguments, but it clearly shows that you're not up on your "laws" as you lead others to believe. This statement from you, I've watched, in too many arguments that you initiate.
Yet, you ignore Arizona.
Quote:The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. 2 § 26
You can look that one up, if you want. It's real.