My 2nd amendment argument

[kentuck]

7. In my opinion, it has to be interpreted in the context of the times.

America was growing out into the Wilderness and a hunting rifle was needed for survival, for killing game and animals for food. It was a necessity.

They were the people that were asked to be the "militia", to gather together to protect their homes and villages, from outside attacks, wherever they might come from.

The new country, and the government, did not wish to infringe upon that right. It was to their benefit, as well as the collective "people".

It was necessary for the people to remain a "free state".

The "government" wanted to know who had a gun in their home and who did not? Those that had a gun were required to be part of the "militia". In that sense, it was "well regulated".

That is my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.