JoeB131
Diamond Member
There is absolutely no ambiguity.
The Bill of Rights was only restrictions on the federal government, so could not possibly have been referring to the National Guard in the 2nd amendment, even if the National Guard had existed back then.
That would require the semantic meaning that the federal government was prohibited from disarming its own forces.
No, there was no national guard back then. That wasn't created until the Dick Act of 1903. Before then you had state militias that were mixed in levels of training, professionalism and equipment, and they realized that system really didn't work for a world power.
The meaning at the time was the meaning of the states wanting their own militias just in case this whole union thing didn't work out.
But frankly, I don't care what the intent was in 1903 or 1787. I really and truly don't.
Does it make sense TODAY in 2019 for a person like Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz to be able to buy a military grade weapon and military grade ammo? They aren't in a militia. There is really no good reason for them to have that kind of weaponry. Yet they did, and killed 26 and 17 people, respectively.