Until quite recently (in 2008), the US constitution’s second amendment was read with an emphasis on the first phrase: The necessity for a well regulated militia. However in 2008, they reversed the importance of the two phrases and since then it’s been about the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed.
SCOTUS being what it is, there’s hardly any chance that they’ll reverse the two most recent decisions that emphasize the right to bear arms. There’s also zero chance, imo, of replacing it with a new amendment. Thus, bottom line: We are limited to a policy of groan and bear it. AND die trying…
Until quite recently (in 2008), the US constitution’s second amendment was read with an emphasis on the first phrase: The necessity for a well regulated militia. However in 2008, they reversed the importance of the two phrases and since then it’s been about the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed.
SCOTUS being what it is, there’s hardly any chance that they’ll reverse the two most recent decisions that emphasize the right to bear arms. There’s also zero chance, imo, of replacing it with a new amendment. Thus, bottom line: We are limited to a policy of groan and bear it. AND die trying…