[Honcho]

It's always been my assertion that the Second Amendment has been misread by both sides of the arguement. To me the Second Amendment says this : Because the State must have an Army to be secure, then the State can not interfere with the people's rights to own a gun.

[section9]

Hey fellas, what's the impact of the decision that just came out of the Fifth Circuit? I forget the name, but I understand it comes down heavily on the individual rights side of the equation.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Greeklawyer]

that is a correct reading.
Did not ashcroft in abandoning all the prior gun cases
say this justice department is adopting the individual
rights perspective of the second ammendment.

[William Tell]

Honcho said: 'It's always been my assertion that the Second Amendment has been misread by both sides of the arguement. To me the Second Amendment says this : Because the State must have an Army to be secure, then the State can not interfere with the people's rights to own a gun."

Not quite. The word "militia" does not mean army. It means the people acting in their role as protectors of their security. Our Founders distincly refer to "standing armies" as being a threat which will be countered by having an armed populace which will always outnumber them.

When Paul Revere rode to warn Lexington and Concord, he did not shout "The British are coming!". He did not shout "The Militia are coming!". He shouted "The Regulars are coming", referring to the "Regular Army" as opposed to the militia made up of every armed farmer and tradesman.

Our Founders understood exactly what was necessary to insure that the people would be protected from a tyrannical government and it did not consist of insuring them a place in the army which was commanded by that government.