[Ancesthntr]

You said that the 2nd had nothing to do with the military and it’s weapo, and that is the part of what you said with which I disagree. Of COURSE the 2nd is a hedge against tyranny, but the militia was intended to be MORE powerful than the standing army. Hard to do if weaponry used by the standing army is leagues ahead of what citizens own - what if civilians were restricted to 18th Century weapons while the .mil continually modernized?

[rxsid]

"You said that the 2nd had nothing to do with the military and it’s weapo, and that is the part of what you said with which I disagree."

You think the 2nd Amendment DOES have something to do with the military? If you do, your literally taking the dissent view in the Heller case. Your siding with the liberals.

The "military" and a "militia" are two different things, even back then. The "military" was known as the Continental Army. Not the "militia." Does the 2nd Amendment mention the Continental Army? Or the military? It only mentions "militia." Which, again, is NOT the "military" like the liberals and anti-2nd amendment people like to argue when trying to define who has a right to bear arms.

So no, as stated, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the military.