The second amendment says nothing about private purposes and makes no such distinction.
“The second amendment says nothing about private purposes and makes no such distinction.”
I’m supposing you are citing, without chapter or verse, from Holmes’ seminal volume:
“Sheep-Dip, Cow-Flop, Bovine Excrement and Other Pure Poppy-Cock.
(More from the US Court of Appeals, cited above:)
“The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10
amendments to the constitution, commonly known as
the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any
novel principles of government, but simply to embody
certain guaranties and immunities which we had
inherited from our English ancestors, and which had,
from time immemorial, been subject to certain wellrecognized
exceptions, arising from the necessities of
the case. . . .
Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press
(article 1) does not permit the publication of libels,
blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications
injurious to public morals or private reputation; the
right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is
not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of
concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall
be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a
second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to
agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the
defendant’s motion; nor does the provision of the same
article that no one shall be a witness against himself
impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against
him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by
statutory enactment.”
So the Bill of Rights all guarantee the rights of men, all that is but the 2nd Amendment; that’s your story and you’re sticking to it.
Good luck with that.
Where does the second say “state militia”?
You are aware that private militias were common at the time, right.
Didn’t Thomas Jefferson have a private militia?