No, it's because the 2nd amendment says so.

Yeah well, it seems to me that it comes down to an argument about semantics then.

You have the second amendment which says you have the right to bear arms and the amendment was made because the people realized the need for a militia. It's just a circular point from the outside looking in.

What I mean is, the two are tied up together and form part of the same argument because it's unlikely you'd have one if it weren't for the other. Each point supports the other.

Why it was written is a moot point. Only what it says counts.

Do you really believe that?

Fuckin A right I do... about the entire Constitution. It's the foundation of our country and our way of life.

So you don't care why it was written, just that it was?

Because it doesn't matter. All history of this continent prior to the Constitution being written, is just that, history. It could be lost forever and it would have no effect on us...it wouldn't change the Constitution.

It's because of history that your world is as it is today, so in my opinion, it's very relevant. Incidents and actions prior to your constitution being written certainly would have contributed to its contents.

I'm just really surprised that you hold such a view Bruce.

Sure they did, but that's just interesting history. It doesn't change what was written, and that's what we live by.

But what was written is changed and modified constantly, hence the ammendments.

Anyway, I still think that line I mentioned taken in a literal sense, precludes women from bearing arms because as I said, you have the right bear arms because of the second ammendment which was made so the people could have a militia. :)

But the history before the writing of the original document have no bearing on the amendments that have been made since then. Keep in mind, the Bill of Rights which is the first 10 amendments, were not changes, they were part of the original document as adopted by the people.

Aliantha, it's less a circular argument than an inextricable intertwining of every relevant factor.

Women with guns can, for instance, deflate rapists more effectually than women with anything else, period. Even a Doberman might be in the back yard. And even those who fret, "isn't it awful for a woman to have to shoot somebody at whites-of-the-eyes range?" seem remarkably forgetful about how awful it might be to have to get raped, with or without subsequent murder by any of an assortment of up close and personal methods -- rather seldom, in fact, do the rapist-murderers back off and shoot. You hear about them strangling, or stabbing, or bludgeoning.

This cognitive disconnect is one thing that persuades the pro-gun people that the antigun people are completely out of their minds.

The idea of a national militia as a national defense wasn't really very successfully implemented in the United States. Switzerland's military seems a better try at it -- and this has not been tested in any conflict, let alone a outrance. It seems that militia powers of the citizen have their greatest effect in police matters rather than general war. Certainly this is their usual venue.

The point was this UG.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . .

My question was, does this above line preclude women?

So far no one has answered.

I'm really not interested in the whole gun debate...again...ad nauseum...etc etc etc...

That line precludes women from belonging to the militia.
The second amendment does not say you have to belong to the militia to own a gun.
Women were not precluded from owning guns.
Women are not now precluded from owning guns.