I think that we can safely assume that the framers would not commit 10% of the Bill of Rights to a "meaningless" right. If that is the case then which of your presuppositions is inaccurate?
Not every state has a militia. Merely having the physical strength to fire a gun does not make one "capable" of serving in the militia. For the militia to be "well regulated" the people must be permitted to possess arms which the can use in the event they are needed and they should be familiar with their use and maintenance. This means that the right to Keep and Bear Arms needs to include those weapons that are useful in a military context. It also means that the right needs to encompass those weapons and activities that one would use to train and practice with, ammunition, training, shooting facilities, etc. are all protected expressions of the right enshrined in the second amendment. In other words, Because we need to have a militia to defend our nation from enemies and tyranny it is important that "the people" are armed so that they may prepare and, if necessary, form up without governmental assistance, or in spite of governmental interference. From: Dave Hardy <dtha...@mindspring.com> To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2011 1:08 PM Subject: Re: Well regulated You can find related references at least back to Charles I, who sought an "Exact Militia." If militia is taken to mean all men capable of bearing arms, then "a militia is necessary to a free state" is meaningless. Every state, free or unfree, has one.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.