Quote:
|
was not to not grant theright to arms , but to preserve and guarantee a pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms
|
please explain to me why the two things you said are any different
i think of the second ammendment as a way for the founding fathers to have somewhat of a backup army, in the case that our real one fails(hopefully never), even when the enemy marches through our towns they have to fight against our own civilians as well. This backup army is also at no cost to the government.
By well regulated i believe that those who participate by holding guns must be loyal to the government and not some rebel, and of course competent.