Marty S. wrote:
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.


-------------------------------------------------
Where does it say that you have the right to keep and bear arms if you are
not a member of the state militia?

Where does it say you have the constitutional right to shoot?

rant mode on

It's right there with the right to privacy and the right to an abortion
and the restriction on mentioning God anyplace there is government.

Seriously, just read it. The first part: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state,...." tells WHY they
put the second part in. It says that in order to KEEP a free state free,
you need a well regulated militia. Webster's 21st Century dictionary
defines "militia" as "an emergency citizen army". It wouldn't be much of
an army if all it had was paintball and bb guns.
The second part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed." says that THE PEOPLE (not army or paramilitary or
sportsmen, etc.) have the right to keep and BEAR (defined as "carry",
not just own in a locked safe in your basement) weapons such as they
would need to protect themselves (from other individuals or an
overbearing out-of-control government or an invading army or even
terrorists). It says this right shall not be infringed. Websters defines
infringe as "violate" or "encroach". It could be argued that having to
jump through ANY hoops in order to carry a loaded weapon is an
encroachment on that right. Hoops such as conceal and carry classes,
waiting periods, etc. No, I am not saying that I think I should be able
to drive a tank through Washington, but I am saying that it sure looks
like the constitution says I should be able to do a lot more than I can now.
Whew.

rant mode off