Originally Posted by Peetza
what would be the interpretation of the 2A that would be a benefit to the government for having it [?]
Originally, it was to have a cohort of able-bodied/competent men who could quickly form a "well-regulated" militia in response to a security threat to the state. It is very
significant that this capability was to be invested in "The People" rather than reserved to an officially-controlled standing Army.
And if one reads enough of the Federalist papers trying to convince the State legislatures to sign on to the current Constitution, that very armed People was dramatically touted as the reason that no central gov't could sieze trannical power.**
2A was intended to cut both
- The People's defense of a Just government;
- The People's defense against
an unjust one.
** It was very much NOT for "...hunting or sporting purposes." It was for deadly force against humans purposes.)