But the question is, is the first part of that a modifier of the second, or a rationale for it?
Though I'm sure someone could come up with an argument that, for there to be a well regulated militia, everyone has to have the right to bear arms.
In any case, isn't clearing up fuzzy situations and edge cases like this one of the things the Supreme Court is for? '.'
I'm not clear on what the difference between the right to bear arms being an individual right or a collective right is, therefore I have no idea what'd be strange about it. '.'
In most scenarios I've seen where the issue actually came up, there ended up being regular military on both sides. A coordinated group of civilians with guns becomes noticably more dangerous...
-Morgan.
Though I'm sure someone could come up with an argument that, for there to be a well regulated militia, everyone has to have the right to bear arms.
In any case, isn't clearing up fuzzy situations and edge cases like this one of the things the Supreme Court is for? '.'
I'm not clear on what the difference between the right to bear arms being an individual right or a collective right is, therefore I have no idea what'd be strange about it. '.'
Quote:First, there's the fact that a mob of civilians with guns is going present exactly the same level of inconvenience to a real military unit as they would without.
In most scenarios I've seen where the issue actually came up, there ended up being regular military on both sides. A coordinated group of civilians with guns becomes noticably more dangerous...
-Morgan.