Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ametek.UUCP!walton
From: walton@ametek.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: The second amendment
Message-ID: <12243414841.15.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 18:06:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12243414841.15.MCGREW
Posted: Wed Oct  1 18:06:24 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Oct-86 06:48:17 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


Keith Lynch edited his recent quotation from the Second Amendment to
the US Constitution.  That amendment, in full, reads:

        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.

Note the capitalization of Militia and State (in the original).  The
amendment's reading seems clear to me--it gives the States the right
to have well-regulated Militias.  The ability of any individual to own
whatever weapons he or she chooses is clearly outside the scope of the
amendment.  I suppose one could argue that the States are free to
define their militia as comprising the entire populace, but such a
militia would not be "well-regulated" unless licenses and bonds for
weapons ownerships were required, similar to those for automobile
ownership.

[ Hm... well, during the days of the writing of the Constitution (and
many years after) possession of guns by private citizens was not
regulated in any way.  What this say of the meaning of the Second
Amendment?  - CWM]
-------