"Robert Musgine" wrote in message
...

"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Robert Musgine wrote:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into
execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business
that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a
month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great
body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be
under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of
perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated
militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public
inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Bob, one thing is quite clear from the wording of the Amendment itself. -
It's that however you define the term "militia" (and most jurists and
case law consider it to refer to Article I militias) it is a well
REGULATED militia. - Strange how that principle is so often ignored.

Jim


Well regulated.... Back in the days when the Constitution was written the
militia was well regulated. Nowadays, some people want to over regulate
the militia out of existence (that's their agenda!).

More laws apply to the militia today than did 200 years ago. I'd say it
is definitely "well" regulated and perhaps "over" regulated.

The question remains - regulated by whom?

Anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

"The Second Amendment, as written by the Constitutional Convention of
1787, states:

" 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. "

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National
Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by
William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

" 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. "

Both versions are commonly used in official US Government publications.





Funny that both say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms() shall
not be infringed."

So explain how it pertains only to the militia?



"A well organized Congress, being necessary to the detriment of a free
state, the right of the people to wear clown costumes, shall not be
infringed."

So only Congress can wear clown costumes?

Let's get down to brass tack, shall we?

"to *keep* and bear arms" Now, we all know that to bear arms means to carry
or be equipped with them. But, what does it mean to *keep* arms. It means to
retain them in one's possession. If they are held in an armory at a militia
headquarters they are not, by definition, being kept by the people.

Wilbur Hubbard