A friend of mine points to these papers to argue against an individual's right to bear arms, that these Papers reinforce the idea that the 2A was only meant to exist in the form of a "militia".
Ive read both the Papers and while they do refer to militias, I dont really see where they exclude an inherent right to self protection.
But I'm not exactly sure how to counter his argument.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us