"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."
I wonder why this doesn't mean two separate and distinct ideas. First, there is a recognition that the security of a free State must rely on a militia, but it must be a well regulated militia. A poorly regulated militia would be a dangerous thing, wouldn't it? That being said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On the one hand the State is asserting the need for a well regulated militia, and at the same time, acknowledging the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
posted on 03/13/2004 1:33:35 PM PST
("Do you know who I am?")
I always read it...and I was taught this way in 8th grade CALIFORNIA STATE REQUIRED test on the Consitution...that BECAUSE the state required a 'well regulated militia', THE PEOPLE had the 'right to bear arms' to KEEP the state & it's militia in line.
IOW, it was an idividual right to protect 'the people' FROM the state & it's 'militia'.
How times have changed in 45 or so years
posted on 03/13/2004 2:20:28 PM PST
(The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson