Issy, in the 21st century there is no legitimate reason for the citizens pf any country to bear arms. The conditions that existed in the United States in 1791 were far different that the conditions that exist there today.

The call for a private army, aka "citizens militia", smacks of a totalitarianism, is that something you support for Australia?

The present system of political donations has always favoured those in power, or potentially in power, the Liberal and Labor parties. The big two parties have a vested interest in maintaining the present system of discloser. Large political donations by business, unions or organisations are not made to political parties for any altruistic reasons. They are an investment, an investment made to hopefully further the vested interests pf the donor.

Paul,

"Issy, in the 21st century there is no legitimate reason for the citizens pf any country to bear arms. The conditions that existed in the United States in 1791 were far different that the conditions that exist there today."

You're right there, conditions are much worse today.

Self defence is not a reason?

How would you feel walking the streets of Kabul or any other Afghani town/countryside unarmed?

What's your thoughts on resisting home invasion?

Have you found any evidence to back up your/Greens' allegations of the NRA being involved in Australian politics?
Specifically the giving of monies.

Dear Is Mise,

You again ask me - how do I interpret the Second
Amendment of the American Constitution?

In my opinion the Second Amendment is a relic of the
founding era more than two centuries ago. It's
purpose is long past. The Amendment should not block
the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun
control legislation. That was never its intent.

Of course the language of the 2nd Amendment has created
considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended
scope. It's up to the courts to interpret .

Foxy,

The Courts have interpreted it.

Why don't you give us your interpretation based on your knowledge of English?

Don't you believe that people have a right to defend themselves?

Dear Is Mise,

Yes the courts have interpreted it.

In fact -

The term "self-defence" does not appear in the Second
Amendment. It's writers tied gun ownership to "a well-regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

The Supreme Court has used the militia phrasing to support
gun-control laws. The Supreme Court (via Justice Scalia)
argued very clearly that like most rights the Second Amendment
rights are not unlimited. That it is not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.

But I shan't go into this here.

I suspect that all you really want to do is stir.

I'll leave you to it.

Foxy,

I asked if you believed in the right to self defence not what some judge thought, so do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves and if they are genuinely in fear for their lives to kill their assailant/s?

Can't you work out the meaning of the 2nd Amendment; and you a librarian?