Kennetic said:
I don't think there's any point in arguing with you as it's hard to tell if you're trolling or not. Militias often are not formed until they are needed, therefore we have the right to bear arms so that we may form an effective militia quickly when the time comes. We are constitutionally able to own firearms, get over it. Thriving on fear? Tell that to the many families who have protected themselves from home invasions and the like. There is fear, but guess what, I'd rather be alive at the end of the day so I'll carry a gun at all times whenever possible.
It's hard to know if we're talking about the same thing or not. The second amendment grants the right to bear arms for a well regulated militia. The first clause trumps the second clause, according the Supreme Court, ergo:
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
And that has been the legal stance until 2008, when NRA lobbying finally changed public perception enough for a court to uphold the second clause above the first, and literally changed the constitution.
To me, it sounds like you have your own personal interpretation of second amendment, so I don't know if there's any point in arguing.
Protected themselves? Tell that to the many families who killed themselves or each other, lost a family member, friend or child in gun related accidents "and the like".
There is fear, but guess what, the last thing two fearful people need are lethal weapons. Because that can quickly turn to two dead people.