The second amendment does not mention self-defense. This is no more than a play on words. Why then would a person have the right to arm themselves? For show and tell? Another Liberal spin to fit their own agenda.
Q: Why then would a person have the right to arm themselves?
How about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" being the reason why.
Are those words mere surplusage? (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803)) Are they there for "show and tell"? Are they "just window dressing"?
Sorry, it's not a liberal spin, but a perfectly sound legal interpretation, as well as a very conservative opinion. This is in opposition to popular misconceptions held by the public. The popular misconception has been granted official sanction by, of all people, Antonin Scalia. To justify this interpretation, Scalia has had to violate every principle he claims to believe in (see my posts tagged Scalia)
I see it (the term self-defense) in the words of the Second Amendment
Then, I suggest you pull out your braille edition and get a better feel of the text --because it ain't there!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Your hallucinations aside, chum, the phrase "self-defence" does not exist in the words of the Second Amendment.
Of course, people who don't mind finding words in laws where they don't exist end up with no legal system.