Conversely, why would it say that a well regulated militia is necessary if that wasn't the purpose of people having guns?
That's the thing, I'm not against an individual right to bear arms. I think that it was well understood at the time that most households had a gun in them. The nation was largely rural and guns were needed for hunting, defense from wild animals and in some places, defense from Indian attacks. However, the debate during the consideration of the 2nd Amendment, as I understand it, was almost entirely in a military context. There was a strong contingent worried about a standing national army and others who were trying to put in an explicit exception from the militia requirement for religious objectors, etc. I do think that we ought to recognize an individual right to bear arms. I'm just not sure that that's what the 2nd amendment does. I'd much rather see it dealt with in a new amendment and make the situation clear. Judah On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then why does it say the 'people' have the right to keep and bear arms > rather than the militia? > > It never says you need to be in a militia to own a gun, merely that a > militia is necessary for the scurity of the state. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280112 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
