Replies

Then again .... if they simply meant the people have the right they would have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gosh. Why did they add all that Militia clutter?

Call me crazy, but maybe they meant the people, who are part of a well regulated state militia, have their right to keep and bear arms protected from federal infringement. I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.

Looks like an armed public is necessary to the ability to form a militia. Robertpaulsen, if he were around would admit it without all the bizarre distortions, as he said elsewhere in this thread:

If the Supreme Court rules the 2nd Amendment is an “individual right” that extends beyond the limits of active participation in a state militia, I, robertpaulsen, promise to stop harping on my much-disputed premise.

There's one for your page, if you want it, Mojave. ;-)