[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 05:34:16 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Gun ownership and use...

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT grant specific rights to citizens. Rather, it
acknowledges particular rights that the government is obliged to respect.
And one of the Amendments says that the enumeration of certain rights does
not disparage others. If you can think of a particular right -- such as
privacy -- not mentioned in the BoR, the government is obliged to respect
it. The ownership and use of weapons for personal use is one such right.

Americans owned and used firearms long before the Revolution. It is a
"natural" right, as are dozens of others, subject only to "reasonable"
regulation for good reasons.

The weird phrasing is probably the outcome of the British having taken
weapons from Americans so they couldn't fight back. As militia members
usually supplied their own weapons...

Both "sides" in this issue are wrong. I've never seen such a lack of common
sense.


Ok, here's another reading - with plenty of linguistic reason behind
it. Here's the second amendment:

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.

The second half is consequent upon the first. In other words, because
a well regulated militia is necessary, the people must be able to bear
arms. A militia is clearly no longer necessary, so the right to bear
arms has likewise lapsed.

d