[boris]

"It says, '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.'"

No, it does not. The Second Amendment contains only a single comma.

--Boris

[babyface00]

IMHO, there are several flaws in his argument.

1) The phrase "well regulated militia" - he assumes that "regulated" means being constrained by numerous laws (the 20th century use of the word) rather than the 18th century use, which meant utilizing a common caliber of ammunition. Secondly, he defines militia as being an organized organ of the State, and not a group of individual citizens who may, or may not, share the interests of the government currently in place

2) The phrase "security of a free state" - there's a subtle difference between treating a "free state" as a government, vs a "free state" as being the collective citizens (regardless of the government in power). Is it for the security of the government in power, or that of the people who make up the body of the citizenry? I would argue the latter, the professor argues the former.

3) His budget example is off base. How about this phrase:
"An armed group of individual citizens using agreed-upon ammunition being necessary for the security of free people, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Would this person still doubt the clear meaning of the founders?

4) And that's not even considering the many crystal clear quotes by the founders that have already been posted.

[RichT]

Sorry Boris, but you are incorrect. There are three (3) commas in the 2nd Amendment.

[stayout]

"It says, '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.'"

No, it does not. The Second Amendment contains only a single comma.

--Boris

Ahem . . . um . . . actually, the Second Amendment contains three commas, not one comma.

Click here for a high resolution picture of the Bill of Rights.