This message was self-deleted by its author

[jmg257]

41. 1) there are only commas in the amendment (which are not important to the discussion).

The whole gist is the 2nd clause, and how 'the right to keep and bear arms' is interpreted. (if there is an issue in how to interpret it, then simply refer to the 1st clause - why there are preamble clauses in the 1st place).

Even I would have a hard time showing that, especially in this case, it does not refer to keeping and bearing arms associated with militia service.

Was there a right to own arms outside of the militia? Of course. Were guns VERY important?...Of course. Did the people have a right to own private property, including arms? Of course. But there can be little doubt that THE reason for the 2nd amendment was to ensure the government could not usurp their new militia powers to disarm the militias, or declare whole classes of people who could not serve (it was a duty and a right).

The recourse of destroying the militias being a greater need for a large standing army.


All mute for now, thanks to Heller. Which BTW still allows infringements of sorts on an individual's right to arms.