Debate Magazine

Questions:

Posted on the 04 April 2013 by Mikeb302000
If the militia part of the Second Amendment is not important why did the founders say it was necessary for the security of the free state? Why even say it in the first place if it isn't important to the Second Amendment?
Why not say something like "
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" if it is about private arms?

Remember
said that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect"–5 U.S. 137 (1803).  Saying that either clause is unimportant removes from the meaning of the Second Amendment's actual protection.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog