"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
My understanding is that there are two interpretations: One is an "individual right" and the other is a "collective right."
If the right is individual, why does the article mention militias at all? If the right is collective, why doesn't it just read, "The right of a well-regulated militia to own and bear arms..."
Was Madison (I understand he wrote it?) intentionally being vague?
2007-06-30
09:52:22
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Law & Ethics