[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:16:07 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:

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.

So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of maintaining
a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to pretend that the
bits you don't like aren't there you may as well throw the
constitution out right now.

d

I see you didn't have a Mrs. Hughes either. If it said, A well roasted side
of venison being necessary for the stomaches of the members of a free state,
the right of the peopole to keep and ber arms shall not be infringed, it
would still mean the same thing.

The law states that the people have a right, and this right shall not be
infringed. Why it shouldn't be infringed has nothing to do with the law. The
first part of the sentence tells me that they were talking about assault
weapons, and not hunting or target weapons, but even that is neither here
nor there. The law would still state that the people's right to keep and
bear arms will not be infringed.

You aren't a Christian by any chance, are you? You twist the
constitution the way a Christian does the bible.

d