Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

ulTRAX wrote:

> Bill Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
> > Revisionist historians like to tell us it preserves the State's power
> > to maintain a militia. Why doesn't it say;
> >
> > "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> > state, the power if the several States to establish and maintain a
> > militia shall not be infringed."
>
>
> Perhaps because it was the People (white males... etc) that owned the
> guns... not the states.
>
>
> > The Constitution's purpose is to grant certain powers to the
> > government not grant rights to the people. 
> >
> > Please show me where any of the founders meant that the right to keep
> > and bear arms was meant to be exclusively within the context of a
> > militia.  I think they might be astonished at the suggestion.
>
>
> I have NEVER said this. I have consistently said that I believed the
> 2ed recognized state rights to control arms if they wished... say to
> slaves... but no such controls could interfere with the operation of
> the militia. I have also said that I believe the right to bear arms is
> in the ninth to the extent the federal or state governments don't
> restrict rights per the 10th. Since I've done more reading I believe
> that the First Congress intended the well-regulated militia to be a
> counterweight to a standing army should one ever be created. That's a
> pretty well established historical argument. We see in Federalist 46
> and the House debates on the second amendment for example.

	Where does the Second Amendment mention "the states"?

Pat Hines