The free state is singular. The security in and of the free state depends upon your ability to defend it. The means is whatever is necessary. A demonizer could say that your arms end at your wrist. A militia would have been familiar to a hunter gatherer society. They did things collectively. And they knew the difference between an army and a militia. An army belonged to the ruler and a militia was 'ours'.
They have taken all the freedom already so what's the point? Is that what you really mean to say?
Martin
On Jul 23, 2004, at 6:15 PM, martin wrote:
> Unfortunately your analysis is misdirected at the guns rather than the
> freedom. The ambiguity is due to the nature of the intent - defense
> against the rulers.
>
> Martin
>
> On Jul 23, 2004, at 5:29 PM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
>> Its all very academic of course. The US state no longer relies on a
>> voluntary militia for defense and it doesn't even satisfy the
>> definition of being a "free state" anymore. So the preconditions that
>> make the right to bear arms necessary, according to the
>> constitutional provision in question, no longer apply. On that basis,
>> the right to bear arms is redundant.