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

Leif Rakur wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ulTRAX) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> > It's rather curious that the Gun Nuts find a universal right to bear
> > arms in language that clearly doesn't intend one: "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."
> >
> > If the First Congress intended a universal right all they had to do
> > was simply write "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to
> > bear arms." Now that would be a Gun Nut's wet dream. No more having to
> > rewrite history or force round pegs in square holes.
>
>
> Leif speaking:  Sure, except Congress would have used the word "carry"
> rather than "bear," since the phrase "bear arms" referred specifically
> to armed military service.

	No, it most certainly does not.  That argument is barely lucid.

> >   
> > How about "People being necessary to the security of a free state, the
> > right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > Or better yet: "A unorganized rabble, being necessary to the security
> > of a free state, the right of untrained people to keep and bear arms,
> > shall not be infringed."
> >
> > Any others?