"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...
"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. "


I don't see what people don't get about this simple statement. Why do they
try to read all sort of crap into it that's not there nor was intended to be
put there.

If it were written in today's English it would be written thusly - "Because
a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A militia, at the time this was written, consisted of individual citizens
bearing arms - their own personal arms. If needed, a call was put out and
indivicual citizens gathered with their arms to fight an enemy. If
individuals weren't intended to have a right to bear their own arms there
would not be a militia. No milita that I've ever heard of at that time had a
bunker full of arms that were passed out to individuals. It didn't work that
way.


A well educated citizenry, being necessary for the civility of a free
state, the right of the people to gain and use knowledge, shall not be
infringed.



Obviously this means that only the citizenry can use knowledge as a
collective and the use of knowledge by the individual is not a right.

Huh? How so? Or are you being sarcastic. It's very apparent that "the
people" refers to individuals - not some group of indeterminate size.

Maybe, just maybe, the individual use of knowledge makes for an educated
citzenry, just as individual ownership of firearms makes for a militia. If
not we can then perhaps delegate knowledge and thinking to those selected
by the state, for the state's purpose.

The founders feared the power of the federal govt. The founders were
concerned about state's rights. Militias are a state voluntary military
consisting of individuals bearing their own arms. It's so clear that you
have to be a fascist liberal to misinterpret it.

Wilbur Hubbard