ORIGINAL: jackflap
You stated that the framers went out of their way to differentiate from the PA and VT "Declarations of Rights" in which terms such as self defense and hunting were explicit and went out of their way to avoid such language.
You also stated in your response that the 2nd amendment was to pay homage to state sovereignity and recognizing the need for a citizen militia.
Here is my question.
And I am askingto truly try understand the other side's argument.
Why then did they include the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" if their intent was solely make a provision for State Militia. The sentence would have made perfect sense and accomplished this supposed sole purpose without it, so why was it included?
Because it wasn't necessarily strictly relegated to a "state militia." The citizen army could be either raised at the request of the state - OR - by the people - as a check-and-balance against EITHER the sovereign states OR the Federal government.
I think the framers were just leaving it as flexible as possible.
If they would've left out "the right of the people" - it would've ONLY permitted a state-raised militia. By including this language, it expanded the scope of
who could raise such a militia - both Citizens AND State.
The framers wanted the states
and the people to each have the ability to raise an army, should the situation ever arise where either situation should have presented itself. This protects the States from Federal oppression, AND protects the citizens from State OR Federal oppression.
Jeff: I agree 100% on the Helmet law.