We are not going to discuss whether this is an individual, collective or civic right. We are going to analyse the sentence that is the Second Amendment. We will also look at it in light of what the Constitution says.
Why is there a "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed" using the words above? What is the scope of this right?
I think I know the answer to that. The answer lies in the first 13 words. These are the 13 words that Justice Scalia left out in order to come to his "majority decision" in Heller. Is that right?
If your answer is self-defence, then you are wrong since the phrase self-defence is not plainly written in the text.
Figthing government tyranny is not mentioned in the Second Amendment.
What is mentioned is a "militia."
So, using the text above and the Constution, The right to "Keep and bear arms" has something to do with "a well regulated militia" since that is mentioned in the text of the Second Amendment and is a purpose tied to "providing for the common defence" which is a purpose stated in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with self-defence since nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment or the Constitution is the phrase "self-defence" present or even hinted at.
What do you think about that? Does it make sense that, in spite of the Heller decision, the first meaning of the 2nd Amendment could not have been about individual self defense?
The way I see it, owning guns for personal protection may very well be necessary and acceptable, depending on the situation, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution. To elevate the desire to own guns to the level of Glorious Divine Rights protected by the Sacred Document is manipulation and distortion.
What's your opinion? Is that Laci the Dog great or what?