On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:22:10 -0400, Happy John wrote:

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.

'their' intent. Wow, that was bad.