"Thomas Gibson" wrote in message
...
"Tim Carter" wrote:
"rw" wrote...
riverman wrote:
I wasn't aware that any legal body, at any level, has managed to
determine precisely what the 2nd amendment intended.

Good point. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is obscure, at best.

My fault, it doesn't say 'well-armed'. But I also suspect the Founding
Fathers meant 'inadequately armed'
Amendment II

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.

Did you intend to say *not* inadequately or maybe *adequately*? The
above doesn't really add up with everything else you've posted on this
topic.

It was a typo...I meant to say the Founding Fathers didn't mean
"inadequately armed", though I thought the implied sarcasm in the mistake
worked.

And I like PA's too....


FWIW, most state constitutions are much more specific:
PA: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned.

IL: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual
citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

MA: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common
defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature;
and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination
to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

WI: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,
defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. (1998?)

Here's a site with links to state constitutions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html

So far, I like the PA version best.

Tom G