That's more of a collective right than an individual one. The first clause and second clauses supercedes the third. The interpretation of the courts has been for over the last 150 years or so that its been a societal right rather than an individual one.
larry At 07:47 AM 7/7/2003 -0400, Heald, Tim wrote: >So to extend your own argument, Dana, why then is the right to keep and bear >arms not an individual right? > >"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." > >Tim ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
