Re: CAN THE STATE MILITIAS EVER BE ABOLISHED?

"The Lone Weasel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Robert S. Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > The Lone Weasel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 29 Nov
> > 2003 18:27:30 GMT Message-ID:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Peter H. Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >>> On 28 Nov 2003 19:46:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> (Leif Rakur) wrote:
> >>>>When the Second Amendment was written, the states already
> >>>>had their militias.  The amendment was about protecting
> >>>>the people in their right to continue their state militia
> >>>>systems of security without infringement from the federal
> >>>>government.
> >>>
> >>>      Actually,  it was protecting the "Right of the
> >>>      People" separate
> >>> from the states.   Otherwise,  it would have said
> >>> "states" as in the 10th amendment.
> >>
> >>"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
> >>of a free state..."
> >>
> >>You boys have a real problem with that part of the Second
> >>Amendment.  How can you just delete the states from the
> >>Second Amendment then insert "individuals" for "the
> >>people"?
> >
> >   RSB: The 'security of a free state' is not referring to
> >   state security, it is referring to the continuing liberty
> >   of the people. How can you ignore that the concept of
> >   freedom applies to individuals?
>
> The two are synonymous according to the Second Amendment.

English evidently confuses you.