On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:49:44 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 4/2/2012 2:39 PM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says...

I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there
would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in
the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state".

It is there to ensure that the states can defend themselves and
individuals can defend themselves.

"*a* free state", clearly meaning the nation, and nothing whatsoever
about self defense... I think we've exhausted the discussion. If you
don't want to admit the obvious that's cool.

By the way, I respect you for your stated opinion on Zimmerman's
responsibilities.

Why would a 'free state' mean the 'nation'? Surely the authors would have used the word 'nation' if
that was there intent. States were in existence at the time.