Spreading your blatant misled opinions and/or lies again?<quoted text>
The 2nd Amendment involves arms available at the time, and is now outdated.
Also, it was intended to form militias to keep the peace and fight off enemies like Indians and the British. NOTHING to do with "battling a tyrannical [U.S.] government." That's just Rightie/gun nut fantasy.
Why would they write this in the 13 Amendment of the Virginia Bill of Rights (1776), if what you say is "true" (don't you wish?):
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
So, again, one must school your forgetful mind again?
They speak of the militia, made up of the entire body of people, to be armed for their defense of freedom; then they go onto to say that "standing armies" (ran by government) are *dangerous* to liberty in time of peace (aka when they're used and set up to fight the citizens themselves).
Only an absolute simpleton (or deceiver) would not openly understand the obvious from that writing alone.
They knew that the militia was to protect We The People from tyrannical governments, foreign or domestic.
They were fighting their own domestic government' military at the time, so of course they had this in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment (and other Amendments in each State) which speak of arming the body of people for their protection of life and liberty.
The Bill of Rights' exact context is *clearly* an attempt to limit (and obviously be skeptical of)*DOMESTIC* government power.
Why would they be so clueless (don't you wish?) as to *ASSUME* a domestic government will always obey the written word of law and supposedly *never* turn tyrannical, yet then think that it's best the people have no arms to back up their liberties and rights spoken of in the law, and others naturally held outside of said law?
Only the intelligent among us know for a fact that: Spoken and/or written rights / liberty mean nothing unless one has force of arms to back them up.
I've clear logic and evidence backing me. You have a bunch of lies, or at best: partial-truths backing you.