On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What other interpretation is possible?
One popular interpretation is that we can't prevent people from joining a well regulated militia and bearing arms. The states would be allowed to maintain their own militias, seperate from any national military, and the federal government couldn't say "only guns for our army, not for yours". It would be reasonable for men of majority age to serve in a state militia and the federal government ought to not be able to do anything about it. I think that a reasonable reading of it would say that people of the time would be expected to be able to keep guns in their home and serve in the state militia. The militia wouldn't be needed all the time, obviously, and so would be composed largely of irregulars, kind of like a 2 weekend a month national guard we have now. But it could also be argued that now a days, the bulk of private gun owners are not part of any well regulated militia and that the purpose of an amendment to make sure that local militias are not disabled by the federal government has no real bearing on the modern situation. You may not like that interpretation and obviously that is not the one taken by the majority in Heller. But that doesn't mean it isn't a possible or even reasonable interpretation. judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280054 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
