@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:The 2nd Amendment very specifically talks about gumns ONLY in the context of militias,
That doesn't matter. The right to keep and bear arms is not defined by the Second Amendment. It is merely protected by the Second Amendment.
MontereyJack wrote:because it was put in there to settle a burning issue in the 18th century that has no resonance today , trhat is, the role of militias to defend the country when everybody hated standing armies, like the English army they'd fought in the Revolution, which was seen as tyrannical. The 2nd amendment settled an argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists as to the role of the militia, as it actually says was its purpose, if you read it.
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were not even arguing over the role of the militia. Both were already in lockstep agreement that the militia should be the primary defense of the country.
MontereyJack wrote:Nothing about self-protection or hunting aor anything else.
The actual case law behind the right to keep and bear arms, however, establishes very clearly that one of the things that it does is protect the right of ordinary citizens to possess guns for the purpose of self defense.
MontereyJack wrote:18th century militia had no reasonable role today, nor has the 2nd amendment any purpose.
The Second Amendment has a very powerful purpose today. Liberals think it is fun to violate people's civil rights for no reason. The Second Amendment prevents liberals from doing so.
MontereyJack wrote:Which is why the NR's image is suffering such drastic hits.
The hatred that liberals have for civil rights advocates could well exceed the hatred that the KKK had for civil rights advocates. But to be hatred by that sort of person is really a badge of honor.