http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311

In Webster's English

Stephen P. Halbrook

Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute,
Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins
of the Right to Bear Arms."

Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in
District of Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality
of a D.C. law restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have
turned to the Founders' writings in an effort to understand the Second
Amendment. What analysts need to do -- recognizing that language and
word usage change over time -- is turn to America's first dictionary.

The Second Amendment states simply, "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."

On Jun 4, 2:31 pm, Sarah Houston pndfnospam.com> wrote:

[snip]

This entire screed ignores potentially the largest point of
contention.
The amendment uses the expression "the right". There was a right that
was intended to be protected from federal interference...

"me" slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:e18415ba-99b4-4c03-bb44-c07dbd6086f9@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 4, 2:56 pm, me slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:

Yawn! Same old "but you said 'militia'" bull!

For anyone who understand the English language (and anti-gun liberals
are VERY good with the subtleties of language) it's clear that the
PEOPLE were understood to HAVE the right to keep and bear arms which
the government was NOT to infringe! A militia (since you said
"militia") is clearly the idea of ALL able bodied (men then, and
everybody now) being allowed to own and carry arms since they might be
expected to serve in the militia at any time. (At times the law even
specified that they bring their own arms).

In article <50re4454iqs5s85ur40rrv15uf89t3uevc@4ax.com>, ZeD hotmail.com>
wrote:

simple challenge nobody else can meet

i live next door to one of the safest city
with a population over 500 000 (san jose)
i dont see anyone but peace officers carrying firearms

so prove to me that we would have even less crime
if everyone carried firearms

arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:

Who cares? All you fruits and nuts are going to be fish food soon, or
die of AIDS. ...

On Jun 5, 1:20 am, mariposas rand mair fheal yahoo.com>
wrote:

Of course you don't see them, they're concealed.

In article <8ad1beef-a82d-4e8d-a62f-ce1b33445c58@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Jim Wilkins gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 5, 12:20 am, mariposas rand mair fheal yahoo.com>
wrote:

. . . > so prove to me that we would have even less crime

I don't think the issue is that all law abiding citizens carry
firearms but that ALL law abiding citizens have the right to carry
firearms if , when and where they want.

DL

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:

Only a hopelessly bored person would engage gun nuts.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries