Political Comics, Memes, Jokes, etc.

[Brownshoe]

(06-16-2016, 05:01 PM)Benton Wrote: It supports what Fred and Matt have both said if you read the whole sentence.



The intent was to not have what we have now: a large army that we constantly put to use at the cost of taxpayers, or to be used as a tool to keep taxpayers under the government's control. If the individual states got into a conflict or had to handle a situation, that was up to the state (and its militia). The Continental Army was small and supplemented by militias. After the Treaty of Paris, it was disbanded because it wasn't needed, there were militias. The initial attempts to form the current Army after the war were rejected multiple times because the states feared that a central army that was too large might be used against individual states that objected to federal regulation.

I support gun ownership, but the 2nd Amendment is more about rights to protect yourself from centralized government more than it is individual rights.protect yourself.

If that was the case then the 2nd half of the amendment wouldn't have been put in. It distinguishes the two groups (militia and people). It's for the ability to have a militia, and the individual right to bear arms.