What's the usefulness of the entire first part of that statement, namely "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?
See War of 1812 for example.
Does the explicit mention of the necessity of a well regulated militia mean that citizens who are not part of that militia do not qualify under this right as per the 2nd Amendment?
My guess would be no, as it says "the right of the people".
After that, you're going to have to specify what exactly constitutes "arms".
This is really getting beyond the scope of my comment. As far as tanks are concerned, I would say no, not at all.
And ultimately...
No, as that has nothing to do with my comment.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/13 12:14 (UTC)See War of 1812 for example.
Does the explicit mention of the necessity of a well regulated militia mean that citizens who are not part of that militia do not qualify under this right as per the 2nd Amendment?
My guess would be no, as it says "the right of the people".
After that, you're going to have to specify what exactly constitutes "arms".
This is really getting beyond the scope of my comment. As far as tanks are concerned, I would say no, not at all.
And ultimately...
No, as that has nothing to do with my comment.