Originally Posted by
Wildtim
No, it claims that a free state needs a well trained militia therefore the people need guns and the government can't take them away. It doesn't say that this "militia" or body of citizens is ever needed or what it might be needed for just that it must have access to guns to be well trained.
I personally feel that this is more of a reflection on the "free state" bit in the second amendment, or rather how far we have come from truly being one, than a reflection on the need for a militia.
I just don't see how a more advanced weapon makes it any less needed that the people be well trained with it in order to defend their free state? If anything I'd this the reverse would be true.
It actually is not all encompassing in any way. It is actually just a list of the freedoms the founders saw as so critical that thought they should be spelled out so the government could not claim ignorance if it tried to trample them. This view is completely correct as all freedom not signed away specifically in the constitution were to be reserved by the people but our government ignores that completely. Proving the need for the second amendment beyond a shadow of a doubt.
In no way do these things violate free speech as they are intended to deliberately harm another person. It is not speech made illegal but using words as a deliberate weapon that is illegal.
These are direct violations of our second amendment rights. There is no greater risk to anyone from my gun because my location is now inside a school than there was outside of it. Approved by the Supreme court or not these clauses have never made any sense and should be faught or done away with whenever they are encountered.