Courts ponder the second amendment

[innerSpaceman]

So Morrigoon, are you suggesting that, since militia are no longer feasible, the 2nd amendment suggests we can indeed repeal the right to bear arms?

Because, funny, that's precisely what I'm suggesting. Your justification argument leads to the same result as my qualification one.



Alex's argument that there's no purpose for handguns but to kill humans misses, heheh, the mark. One of the claims of legitimacy for the right to bear arms is self-defense or home-defense, where indeed the aim is to kill another human being (ostensibly kill or be killed).

That's perhaps a legitimate aim (oh the puns keep coming). Or perhaps not. But it's got nothing to do with the second amendment, which I repeat says nothing about Man's Home being His Castle or addresses any question of self-defense.

The subject of the amendment is militia, and there's no other justification given for the right to keep and bear arms.

So fine ... call it a justification. What difference does that make? You're still stuck with the militia part of the single sentence. How can it be ignored?