On the second amendment
“Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.” Logically speaking, what does a “well regulated militia” have to do with an individual’s ‘right’ to arm onself with M-16s or to secret an automatic pistol on his person while in hospitals, schools or churches?’ NOTHING Am I missing something - other than a series of precedents whereby this straightforward statement incrementaly has been twisted out of shape over the years by successive courts? I am not familiar with this judicial history. So, how do we get to where we are today? It is notoriously difficult to amend the Constitution - if you follow the rules.