[Beckwith]

"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."

It should be remembered that the British government and army at the time represented the lawful governing body of the Colonies. Because the colonists saw the government was unjust, they rebelled.

The founders saw that any future American government could become or threaten to become unjust. So they set their descendants up with the same rights to keep and bare arms for the simple purpose of balancing any government's natural acquisition of more and more power.

A militia is composed of civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army. The left's argument that militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment, refers to the National Guard is a false argument. The National Guard, particularly after Clinton's 1993 Reduction in Force (RIF) made the Guard an integral component of the regular army. It is Clinton policy that has resulted in so may National Guard and reserve personnel being in Iraq.

My last observation is, what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't the lefties understand?

Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

[watchin]

Exactly my point. The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting. It is about the people being well able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

When we start arguing that this weapon or that weapon is legitimate because we could hunt with it, we are well on our way to losing the argument.