Ok Wig, Sarretah,
I just read United States v. Miller again. I understand a lot of the argument.
BUT - the purpose of a militia as the court stated in that case is...
"that it was composed of 'civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws"
how can the argument then be that the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms to protect yourself from the potential "tyranny of the government" if the very purpose of the militia is to enforce the law and will of the government?
__________________
|