> tBone wrote: > I still don't see how you feel it isn't an individual right
Because here's the text: 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 There are numerous terms not well defined here: * "the people" * "arms" *"militia" Next, if you break it down, it says the reason "the people" can "keep and bear arms" is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore if a militia is NOT necessary for the security of a free state (and it's not any longer), then "the people" don't need arms. But that's just one of a 1000 arguments someone could make. At the end of the day, however, they don't mean anything because there's no federal will to ban guns so it's not a very fruitful discussion; interesting academically maybe but that's it. Thus given there's nothing clear but something there, let's leave it up to local governments ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:280662 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
