Originally Posted by BlueTrain
To some, it seems to be so that we can violently overthrow government (presumably any government), while the conservatives among us believe it is to prevent the overthrow of the government.
In every discussion on this topic in which you participate, I always get the feeling that you believe that there must be some SINGULAR purpose for the 2A. This statement is a perfect example. How about, rather than either/or, the answer is BOTH and more?
I also get the impression from your statements, that you somehow correlate the rights of the people with some sort of benefit or service or rationale for the government. As in, what would be the interpretation of the 2A that would be a benefit to the government for having it. I could be wrong, but many of your statements sound that way to me.
Well, there is no singular purpose, except freedom, and it's not there for some future, theoretical government purpose or usefulness. It's there for the benefit of the people.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.