[MileHi]

We agree it protects a subset of "all persons". At the time it was written, however, that subset excluded everyone not qualified for Militia membership -- non-citizens, non-whites, women, and children.

See, you just make things up to fit your leftist world view. It doesn't say that anywhere. It doesn't say "the right of militia members to keep..." it says "the people. In modern English, it says that since militias are the foundation of securing the State, the right of all citizens to own and carry arms can't be screwed with in any way. Only lawyers and politicians are too stupid to be able to read and understand it. And that is only because their agendas cloud their comprehension skills.

[robertpaulsen]

"In modern English, it says that since militias are the foundation of securing the State, the right of all citizens to own and carry arms can't be screwed with in any way."

What you mean is that since militias are the foundation of securing the State, the right of all citizens Militia members to own and carry arms can't be screwed with in any way.

Come on. If Militias are indeed the foundation of securing the State, why protect that right for an 85-year old woman? That makes sense to you?

Yes, we protect her RKBA today. But for different reasons. Not because she's the foundation of our security.