Yes, it does.
The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.
This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.
Actually, it really might in this case.
A number of the justices currently sitting on the supreme court are (or claim to be) originalists.
Meaning, the original intent of the writers is the correct interpretation. Evidence showing what that original intent was can be very useful with judges like that.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3748639
Download the paper, read pages 10 and 11 for context.
There is a record of the Senate debate on this amendment.
One questioned 'Why doesn't this include the president?'.
Another senator replied 'It does under the section of anyone who holds an office'.
The response was 'Ok, I was unclear on that'. And the debate carried on.
So the writers obviously intended this to include the office of the president.
All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.
It's a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.
You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).
God damned degenerates!
Joke pivots on the interpretation of the word 'address'. In this context it would mean 'how do you handle this problem'.
However, it can also mean 'what is the proper way to refer to something (Ms, Mrs, Your Majesty, etc).
The joke is instead of addressing meaning handle the dangerous situation it means what is the proper way to refer to the elephant.
The vast majority of Israeli's were born there at this point.
It's not a stolen home to them. It's the only home they've ever known.
What question do you want answered? Most of what you stated seemed to be rhetorical.
Why is this "Where do they go? 😞 " question relevant only now and only one way?
Because someone specifically told me that every Israeli should just leave Israel?
Are you not following the converstation here?
I just want to say that this comment was a rollercoaster of emotions and I enjoyed the ride.