I think that we can safely assume that the framers would not commit 10% of the
Bill of Rights to a "meaningless" right. If that is the case then which of
your presuppositions is inaccurate?
Not every state has a militia. Merely having the physical strength to fire a
gun does not make one "capable" of serving in the militia. For the militia to
be "well regulated" the people must be permitted to possess arms which the can
use in the event they are needed and they should be familiar with their use
and maintenance. This means that the right to Keep and Bear Arms needs to
include those weapons that are useful in a military context. It also means that
the right needs to encompass those weapons and activities that one would use to
train and practice with, ammunition, training, shooting facilities, etc. are
all protected expressions of the right enshrined in the second amendment.
In other words, Because we need to have a militia to defend our nation from
enemies and tyranny it is important that "the people" are armed so that they
may prepare and, if necessary, form up without governmental assistance, or in
spite of governmental interference.
From: Dave Hardy <dtha...@mindspring.com>
To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2011 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Well regulated
You can find related references at least back to Charles I, who sought an
"Exact Militia." If militia is taken to mean all men capable of bearing arms,
then "a militia is necessary to a free state" is meaningless. Every state, free
or unfree, has one.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
