LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • zerozechs (edited 3 years ago)

    All other times when the constitution specifically states that the "right of the people" has been interpreted as a right reserved for the people. The 2nd amendment also explicitly states this. If you'd like that to mean something different, then good luck changing its interpretation elsewhere. If it was meant to protect the ability of the citizenry to form militias, it would have read so. It says "the right of the people", thus the people have a right to bear arms. The SCOTUS has consistently read the 2nd Amendment as such.

    Well regulated meant trained. Militia meant able bodied males, of a certain age range, and probably white. Modern interpretations with universal rights has taken militia to mean the whole of the citizenry.

    You want a well regulated militia? Support firearms training.