Gosh. And somehow the phrase "to keep and bear arms" has been twisted into the modern meaning of "keep with" and "carry" instead of "maintain and take into battle". But that's OK I guess. Living constitution and all that.
Even if the term "regulate" was abused the way you say (which it's not), the term still only applies to the Militia ("A well regulated Militia") not to the the right of the people.
Sorry, don't mean to be rude, but, do you really believe that or are you just being an ass because you're arguing? The original words in the second amendment "keep" and "bear" have fallen into dis-use, the normally used present day words that mean the SAME thing would be "own" and "carry" (specifically to "carry with you"). To take into battle was the stated benefit of protecting the right to "Keep and bear", or if you prefer, "Own and Carry with you", it was never intended to be added to the "keep and bear" part of the amendment.
I wasn’t talking to you, and I wasn’t talking about that.
The addressee knew what I was referring to.
If I knew you were going to get involved, I’d have written a scholarly dissertation covering every tangent you could conceivably have pursued.
But I didn’t, so I didn’t.
Not only can’t you let it go, you seek out every crack you can wedge your issue into.
Please leave mine alone.
Read Muscarello. Why do you think the Second Amendment only justifies a right to self defense and bearing arms just for the militia?
What's with you?