[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

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.

This interpretation misses the point that the Bill of Rights is neither
proscriptive nor prescriptive. It does not grant rights, nor does it limit
rights.