> These are different arguments than the absurd notion that private gun
> ownership keeps tyranny in check. I don't think they hold water, but they are
> not stupid, unlike that argument. And from a legal professional's point of
> view, the 2d A doesn't guarantee a private citizen's right to bear arms
> outside the context of the National Guard. --jks
Unless, of course, you are one of those pesky legal professionals who happen to follow the decisions of those wild and burly miscreants, the Supreme Court of the United States:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
-United States vs. Miller (1939)
It is not as simple as your hand-waving might imply.
If you want to talk of things "stupid", then what is stupid is this strange hypothesis that "the people" means something completely different for that one, single, ammendment. Or do you propose a limit on free-speech to one weekend a month, and only in a "speech camp"?
Matt
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ The true method of knowledge is experiment.
-William Blake