Replies

Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.

The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms - what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?

The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.

Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.

In the old days up to around WW-I times and for a while thereafter, there was a tradition of local militia drilling on the common, the town green, or the county fairgrounds. It gave people an opportunity to remain somewhat familiar with military duty; it helped to keep them from becoming too rusty. It demonstrated the proper practices and discipline *for all to see.*

It is a shame that most communities and counties and states got out of that practice.

All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.

Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.