reply to post by CX
I agree with others, this isn't an issue about what constitutes a militia. Some have tried to pare it down further and ask, what did the founding
fathers mean by "arms" in an attempt to exclude handguns (silly). At it's root this is an issue about individual rights. The Bill of Rights is a
document with the sole purpose of protecting the individuals rights from a (possibly) oppressive federal government. That alone ends any debate about
the application of the ammendment only to "militias". The document in its entirety is a protection and definition of what rights an individual has
that cannot be infringed on by the federal government.
More on point, the way I read the second ammendment, the latter statement affects the former, not the other way around. It's not that if you're a
militiaman you have the right to bear arms, it's that every individual should have the right to bear arms so that if such a situation presents itself
that requires the formation of a militia the citizens of American will have the means to form such a group in defense of their homes, families,
freedoms, country, etc.
