|
The second amendment has nothing to do with either self-defense or hunting. It contemplates an armed populace to enable said populace to form militias, for, it is assumed, defense of liberty against enemies foreign or domestic. The assumption is faulty, and the amendment is nothing but trouble. But we're stuck with it.
The well-regulated part, to my mind, allows any level of sensible gun control for cause, if the political will is there, as long as militias not under federal control can still operate. Persons patently unfit for militia service could be denied the right to bear arms.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
|