So far I have not tried to reinterpret anything. I'm trying to get people to think.
"...what matters is what is written in the second amendment..."
What isn't written and why it was left out also matters. As I pointed out, "The second amendment says nothing about 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' except that it shall not be infringed." What isn't written leads to disagreements among gun rights advocates today and their energy would be better used against the anti-gun folks than each other.
The reference to Jefferson and so forth was an attempt to shed some light on what people were thinking at the time of the writing or the second amendment.
So, what do you think is the extent of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? How does that right stack up against property rights for instance? If there is a conflict between these two sets of rights, which should prevail and why?
"So, what do you think is the extent of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? How does that right stack up against property rights for instance? If there is a conflict between these two sets of rights, which should prevail and why?"
the right of self-preservation is human nature and the very core of the second amendment, erego "shall not be infringed." bearing arms does not eliminate the responsibility for the proper use of them, and the consequences that can follow. i should be able to carry for the ever possible need to protect myself or my loved ones or my property, yes, my property, from interlopers foreign, domestic and government.
teeman