Ah! Really? I'll have to keep that in mind then -- so scratch most of the message of my previous post. It looks like the task I challenged Radar to do has already been done for him.
However, I see how you could interpret it differently: "a well regulated militia" (oops, I used the wrong word in my previous post) might indicate that it applies to a state army of private citizens. There were also many more advocates of state's rights and freedoms in face of the federal government than there are now.
However, I find it interesting that the article says that the 2nd Amendment was largely interpreted as endorsing state militias for a few decades (and that this view is still held in some Circuits), rather than individual possession of weapons. Looking at the text of the Amendment, it looks to me like both are true. I attempted to bold text that I felt possibly indicated state militias, and italicize text that I felt possibly indicated private gun ownership.
Quote:
|
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.
|
(edit: added why the quote is bold and italic)