Interesting “buzz” Buzz . Chadw posted another interesting string titled Constitutional Carry: What Does It Mean?
From Chad’s article, I missed his point on the “militia” part. However, IMHO, I thought Chad made a good link to today’s self-defense value and the original 2A wording about a right to bear arms, but he also emphasized and ended with a calling for us to seek more training. Wishful thinking on my part, but I would advocate for more affordable training so that those with low income who are law abiding - can have easier access to that training.
Appreciate the pointing out about the Constitution not being actual laws. I understood them to be proposals, suggestions, and opinions. I respect them as noble and as high ideals. But I may not agree with all of them, all of the time, or with their exact wording.
The original Constitution was written circa 1787. It was signed by 39 people, representing 12 states. It’s since been ratified. I had read that the original 2A wording was written by three men; 27 words. Nowadays, we might refer to them as a committee. What strikes me the most, is that it was so long ago, and that we are a different people now than we were then.
234 years later, we can view or interpret the wording according to our own values of today; Hence the disagreement. We are not the same exact people from that date. It’s the laws which hold the legal weight (or bite with teeth), and laws of course can be federal, state, or local.
When Bills are being proposed, or being discussed in the legislature, I wonder if the best strategy is to focus on rights of such lethal self-defense, as opposed to the Constitution, a God, or a religion. I wonder of self-defense is a value of which more persons might resonate with or relate to, as a common thread. To me it’s the laws which threaten or hurt my 2A freedoms, which worries me. With all due respect of course. 