[Jim Noble]

I've got a contrary question:

We agree (I think) that the first amendment bar to Congress restricting free speech is absolute,or nearly so.

Now, if the amendment read, "Free elections and political activity being necessary to a Free State, the right of the people to speak freely, shall not be infringed" would we not think that pornography could be outlawed?

My concern about the militia clause is simply that it must have a purpose - or else it would not be there.

[neverdem]

My concern about the militia clause is simply that it must have a purpose - or else it would not be there.

It's just the most forceful reason to allow the individual RKBA. Folks needed the hardware for self defense as well as food. How would folks get to a rally point unarmed if they have to fight to get there? Colonial militias predate our revolution to the earliest hostilities with the native Indians, IIRC. Whether it is natural disasters like Katrina, or the Rodney King riots, we have a natural right to self defense. Check the excerpt from Parker in comment# 1.

[Travis McGee]

I know what a firearm is, but I’m not sure that porno videos etc are “speech.”

[El Gato]

My concern about the militia clause is simply that it must have a purpose - or else it would not be there.

Of course it has a purpose. To state the main political reason *why* the right of the people is being protected. But that reason does not gramatically restrict or even modify the "shall not be infringed", it does not provide an "except" justification.

I think the Supreme Court of Georgia said it best in Nunn vs. Georgia

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,

[steve-b]

My concern about the militia clause is simply that it must have a purpose - or else it would not be there.

The simplest interpretation is that it provides guidance in what sort of weapons constitute the "arms" protected by the Amendment. That was the issue on which Miller was decided, for example.