[do the dhue]

I don't concur with your statement. Law is power. If what you are saying is true, then why write the law the way they did? Of course men in the militia should have a weapon to fight with. Why add the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed on top of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed? It is common sense that a militia must have a weapon to fight with. Why would they add that the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed? It doesn't make sense. If they didn't want people outside of the militia to keep and bear arms, they would have simply said a well regulated militia shall not be infringed, but they didn't write it that way. They added the people, not the people in the militia.

[robertpaulsen]

"they would have simply said a well regulated militia shall not be infringed"

The concern at the time was the arming of the state Militia. Since rights are protected for individuals, they couldn't say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms ...". Also, it wasn't their intent to have the second amendment protect the right to keep and bear arms for all persons or even all citizens.

So, in 1789, they protected the right for "the people" -- white male citizens only.