Need help with grammar, please!

[malkia]

My english is not very good. I’m trying to understand what 2nd amendment means. In my language when somebody says “A well regulated healthcare , being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and use drugs, shall not be infringed“ it means that the healthcare AND the right to keep and use drugs shall not be restricted.
I’ve seen many opinions on what the 2nd amendment mean, but can you tell me what do you understand when you see sentence constructed in this way? May be the example I’m using is not perfect, but I hope I’m making some sense?

[Wickerman]

1. So, are you suggesting that we universal or single payer

funding source for AK-47's?

[Catch22Dem]

2. Looks good to me

I like your version ;)

[malkia]

3. I’m serious!

I haven’t seen any opinions based on the grammar of the sentence.

[Catfight]

4. 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.

Source: http://www.billofrights.com/

The use of the word, "and" here is used in conjunction with each other...like, peaches and cream. The example you provided is two separate thoughts connected together by the word "and." It could be broken down into two separate sentences. If you said, "the right of people to keep arms, that would not make sense. I hope this helped and your English is better than some people in born in America.

[ET Awful]

5. My personal opinion. . .

The right to keep and use drugs as PART of a well regulated healthcare shall not be infringed.

or to go more towards the actual 2nd amendment. . .

The right to keep and bear arms, as it relates to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.

But that's just my opinion :)

[Columbia]

6. Too bad that's not what it says

[ET Awful]

9. Actually, that's EXACTLY what it says.

"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."

In fact, courts have used the same interpretation on many occasions.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html

After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution
dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ``(w)ith obvious
purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''\5\ The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''\6\ Therefore, ``(i)n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''\7\

\4\307 U.S. 174 (1939). The defendants had been released on the basis of the trial court determination that prosecution would violate the Second Amendment and no briefs or other appearances were filed on their behalf; the Court acted on the basis of the Government's representations.
\5\Id. at 178.
\6\Id. at 179.
\7\Id. at 178. In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922
(1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ``Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ``Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia''').

[Columbia]

10. Ah, good ol' Miller

Says nothing about actually having to belong to a militia to exercise RKBA. Only that it protects weapons that are considered "ordinary military equipment." Which means I have a right to own a M203, M2 or M240G, etc. if I should so choose.

"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."

It's a right of the PEOPLE, not the state or federal gov't.

[iverglas]

11. and fine new Parker, eh?

Or have you forgotten that thread already?

.

[MrBenchley]

27. Amazing, isn't it....

Denial, deception and distortion...without them the RKBA crowd has to be mute.

[ET Awful]

12. It specifically mentions a WELL REGULATED MILITIA

The right is only applicable as it pertains to a well regulated militia. Anyone who is attempting to make an HONEST reading of the amendment can see this. The continued refusal to acknowledge that the WELL REGULATED MILITIA requirement is the key to the amendment does a lot more to weaken your argument than to further it.

This is exactly the reason that the typical pro-gun advocate will only quote the amendment as ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms," they will always leave out the extremely important FACT that the grammatical structure of the amendment specifically states that the right is only applicable in situations involving a well-regulated militia.

Note that a well-regulated militia does not necessarily mean GOVERNMENT.

So tell me why you chose to ignore the fact that there is a specific disclaimer stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is entirely dependent on the relationship to a well-regulated militia?

I truly see no reason to continue the thread, as any grammatically correct intepretation of the amendment will bear out my position, reading of other documents of the time will bear out the correctness of my grammatical intepretation, and neither of us is likely to alter our opinion.

[Columbia]

13. If you read Federalist 28 and 46

You will see you are absolutely and completely wrong. Here are links for your perusual.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_28.html

[ET Awful]

14. Sorry, I have read them,

and neither contradicts my point on legal or grammatical grounds.

[Columbia]

15. Not very well apparently

Also, show me where in Miller it says that you need to be part of the militia to exercise the RKBA please.

[ET Awful]

16. That is not what I said, nor is that what Miller said.

The court in Miller specifically stated that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'"

Thus, without the "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency," there is no guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms within the second amendment.

[Columbia]

17. The argument was that the sawed off shotgun was not used in the military

Although it was. It was remanded back so the defendant could show whether the shotgun he possessed was of "ordinary military equipment." Unfortunately he was dead, otherwise his lawyer could have demonstrated that these weapons were indeed used during World War I and are in continual service today.

The "reasonable relationship to the preservatino or efficiecny" clause relates to the weapons themselves and not the person wielding them. Notice that Miller himself was not part of the any organized militia himself, yet the argument was not made that he could not own such weapons because of it.

[ET Awful]

19. That's a bit of a flawed argument.

The fact is that the court specifically stated that absent the reasonable relationship, there was no protection pursuant to the Second Amendment.

[Columbia]

20. It's in your own quote

"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''"

They had no received any evidence that this weapon was used in the military since Miller was dead and had no representation. All they had to prove was that it WAS used in the military and it would be considered protected under the 2nd.

[ET Awful]

22. The decision was in regard to the right itself, not the particular gun. .

Absent the requisite relationship, the right is not secured by the Second Amendment.

Personally, I am not a huge gun control fanatic, but I do not believe that the Constitution grants the unbridled right to anyone to possess any firearm at any time that they want.

Notice that of all the rights secured by the bill of rights, the right to keep and bear arms is the ONLY one which carries a disclaimer. There is a reason behind this.

[Columbia]

25. Nope

From:
PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 95-1478.
Argued December 3, 1996
Decided June 27, 1997

...

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/95%2D1478.html

[ET Awful]

26. Sorry, but the ruling in and of itself

specifically states the governing "relationship."

By reversing the invalidation of the National Firearms Act, they explicitly stated that restrictions COULD be placed on firearms ownership. This in and of itself is indicative of the fact that the right ot keep and bear arms is NOT unrestricted pursuant to the Constitution.

This IS a finding of fact regarding the way the 2nd Amendment is construed.

Using your interpretation of Miller, which is basically that only arms useful to a well-regulated militia are protected, since a .22 pistol has no use related to a modern "well-regulated militia," it should be outlawed, but since a .50 caliber machine gun has a role in a well-regulated militia, it should be available to anyone that wants one. That, unfortunately falls exactly in line with your reading of the Miller decision.

Any accurate readong of the 2nd Amendment makes it readily apparent that it is NOT referring to particular weapons in particular contexts but to the entirety of "arms."

Nowhere does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear military arms."

If the intent of the Constitution was to allow unrestricted access to weapons, it would NOT have contained a specific disclaimer in the same sentence which grammatically and inextricably links the two.

[Columbia]

31. Haha

Don't take it up with me, take it up with the Supreme Court. They are the ones with the same interpretation as me. Heck, I don't even agree with the ruling myself, but am willing to live with it since pretty much all firearms are built upon military use.

Additionally, the militia segment of the amendment is a declaratory clause, not a restrictive "disclaimer" as you suggest. It is merely a statement/explanation of the most important purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is silly to believe that somehow the people mentioned in the 2nd are not the same people referenced in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[ET Awful]

32. No, what is silly is pretending that the only amendment to

actually provide a specific clause stating it's application and intent is not recognized as such.

It is the ONLY amendment that actually distinguishes how and when the right is applicable, there is no other reason whatsoever to specifically and inseperably link a well-regulated militia to the right to keep and bear arms in the same sentence unless that is the specific reason that it is mentioned. Barring that connection, there is NO reason whatsoever to mention the well-regulated militia in the same sentence with no separation between that mention and the right to keep and bear arms.

If the intent was to permit the ownership of any weapon by any person at any time, they would not have provided the "well-regulated militia" within the same sentence with an inseparable link to the right.

[Columbia]

33. You wish

It is there to explain why the 2nd Amendment must always exist. Without the declaratory clause, people in later generations might look at it and say, "hey, there's no reason to have this amendment here at all, let's just repeal it." And I have no doubt that that is exactly what would have happened without the militia clause.

Pro gun advocates may concentrate too much on the latter half of the amendment, but gun control advocates do the same with the first part. Taken as a whole, we see that the founders explain why militias play such an important role in the relationships between governments and why the only way to keep that last check & balance against tyranny viable is to ensure that the people must always retain the right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

[ET Awful]

34. LOL . . . that is NOT what it says though.

If that was it's intent, it would have stated something more akin to the right of the people to bear arms in order to defend against said militia shall not be infringed.

However, that is not what the amendment says, nor is any such interpretation truly available pursuant to the grammatical structure of the amendment.

By your argument, the first amendment could be repealed, after all there's nothing stating why it is necessary. At least that's what your logic dictates.

[Columbia]

35. There is no reason to believe that yours is correct

Since you were already wildy off on the interpretation of US v. Miller. I linked to a Supreme Court opinion that was directly contrary to your claim so sorry if I don't give any stock to what you believe that grammatical structure means.

Regarding the first amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it doesn't have to be repealed, only ignored, and it's already happening.

[MrBenchley]

36. In fact he IS correct

[ET Awful]

37. I'm guessing you're referring to me being correct. . . .

At least based on your previous post in the thread :).

If so, I'm happy that at least someone here is able to correctly read a simply structured sentence without trying to embellish it.

[MrBenchley]

38. Without distortion, denial or deception

there'd be no RKBA cause at all...

[Columbia]

39. Just like how you so correctly read the Miller opinion right?

:freak:

[MrBenchley]

40. And just like you trying to distort it

[Columbia]

41. Yeah sure Bench

By linking to a Supreme Court opinion. Major distortion there brother.

[ET Awful]

42. You are distorting it. . .

the fact is that the court REVERSED a decision by a lower court. The lower court had abolished the Federal Firearms Act, the Supreme Court REINSTATED THE ACT and declared limitations on the right to keep and bear arms to be constitutional.

That's all there is to it. You can attempt to distort it all you like, but the court specifically stated that absent a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" the right to keep and bear arms is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. That is EXACTLY what the Court stated, to try and distort that simply weakens your position.

[Columbia]

43. Geez Louise!!!

Read again:

"Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."

I did not write that. The US Supreme Court did. Take it up with THEM if you don't agree with it.

[MrBenchley]

44. And in fact...

there's another thread in this folder linking to a lower court decision that states exactly that, based on Miller and the decisions since that.

And our friend is in the thick of that thread, desperately trying to spin THAT decision away.

[ET Awful]

45. Basically what he's doing is showing a complete lack of knowledge

of how case law is used for evaluation in other cases that come subsequent to it.

The fact is that a lower court will use the decision itself as reflected in the court case and the decision as written.

The decision in the Miller case specifically states exactly what I quoted above.

This decision has been cited (as you accurately stated) in lower courts as support for their decision to uphold restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

As I stated previously, I'm not really an anti-gun type, I just feel that the distortions that are used to support the pro-gun side are NOT in any way an accurate interpretation of the Constitution as written.

[MrBenchley]

46. One has to wonder

if such an effort is being made in good faith...

[Columbia]

47. And who has the ultimate say?

The Supreme Court. And they said, "The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."

And that was the only case to ever comment on the 2nd in the USSC. Lower circuit court cases have gone both ways. Until the USSC decides to take a 2nd Amendment case again, Miller still stands as precedent. The fact remains is that your interpretation of the decision is not in keeping with what the USSC said as I have quoted above.

[ET Awful]

48. A multitude of decisions have used Miller as their basis . . .

and those cases have NOT been overturned. The fact that none have made it to the Supreme Court is indicative of the fact that the Court agrees with the interpretation utilized by the lower courts in using Miller exactly as the decision states, to wit "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Lower courts have interpreted this to mean exactly what I've said, and none of those cases has been accepted by the Supreme Court, this indicates tacit approval of that interpretation by the Court.

[FeebMaster]

49. I've always found it sort of funny

that both sides of the argument cite Miller in support of their argument, especially considering the background of the case.

[Columbia]

50. Nope

"Lower courts have interpreted this to mean exactly what I've said, and none of those cases has been accepted by the Supreme Court, this indicates tacit approval of that interpretation by the Court."

That means nothing of the sort. It only means they did not decide to hear those cases. That and only that. You can guess on the reasoning for hearing those cases all you want and it would be just that, guesswork. My guess? The USSC is scared to take a 2nd Amendment case because either way it rules, it will set off a huge change in our culture and they do not want to be the ones responsible for that. Simply stated, they are too scared to rule.

[ET Awful]

51. The reason they have decided not to hear those cases

as with the reason they decide not to hear any case is because they either deem the case to be without merit or deem existing case law or statute to be sufficient. That is what drives their decision whether or not to hear a case.

Recall that you are discussing a predominantly conservative panel of justices, if they had a basis on which to hear any such case they would have accepted it. However, there is no legal grounds for them to base a reversal on.

If there was a case with merit, they would have accepted it, or is it your position that in over 65 years of case law citing Miller as it's basis, the Supreme Court has chosen to reject all cases because they felt like it?

[Columbia]

52. Again, just guesswork

[ET Awful]

53. I see, so your point is that in over 65 years, there hasn't been a SINGLE

case that actually bore scrutiny, and thus none were brought to the Supreme Court so they could even decide whether to accept it? Or is it that you think the Supreme Court just wilfully rejects any firearms case?

Sorry, but the Supreme Court accepts cases based on whether or not the matter was decided properly at lower levels, usually only if there is no existing case law or precedent covering the issue at the highest level.

There have been numerous cases in 65 years which could have been heard by the Supreme Court, the choice of whether or not to do so is based not on whether they feel like hearing it, but on whether there is existing precedent, statute, case law, etc. which is controlling. If there is no controlling precedent, or they disagree with the controlling precedent, they chose to hear the case, this has not occurred in over 60 years, a certain sign that they believe the existing case law and precedent to be perfectly Constitutional, and this case law has interpreted Miller in the same way I have.

[Columbia]

54. Your case MIGHT be more valid

If it wasn't for the court cases going both for and against an individual protection of RKBA. The Supreme Court should have ruled one way or another long ago, but it hasn't. And they haven't because they know that all hell would break loose when they do no matter which way they rule.

[ET Awful]

55. I see, so your position is that they will hear a case regarding

sodomy laws, but not firearms because it's too controversial?

[Columbia]

56. Quite right

[tishaLA]

7. How odd

What a strange analogy and an interesting set of substitutions. And of course, analogies always operate with a kind of approximation; like metaphors, they translate--yes--but they also leave something out and attempt to render that thing invisible.

So let's look at the logic of this poor analogy, shall we? A health care is not a thing that is "regulated," i.e., it does not have a hierarchy, a system, a set of absolute rules and regulations; even patient advocates only achieve a recommended standard of care, but that standard of care is flexible depending upon circumstances.

But it is the other obfuscation that is interests me more: why would one substitute "drugs" where "arms" had been? And how are the regulations dissimilar? Let us begin with one: there are limits to the keep and use drugs (i.e., prescriptions, regulations surrounding narcotics, differences between licit and illicit drugs--a topic we constantly re-navigate--etc.). Why didn't you choose "doctors" here instead of drugs? Obviously one cannot "keep" doctors--well, unless we are Walter Annenberg--but these are equally the things of a "well regulated health care" as "drugs," n'est-ce pas?

As you might be able to tell, my English is also not that good. But I hope this helped you, sir or madame.

[malkia]

18. That was the first thing that came in mind

I just wanted to explain better what I was asking. You can use any words, my question was about the structure of the sentence.
But you are right, I should have chosen better substitutions.

[tishaLA]

23. No, you can't really use "any words"

Because changing words changes meaning. And it begins with an utterly fallacious premise: that universal health care and the second amendment, with its long history, have a radically equivalent history. Of course they do not, and it doesn't take an encyclopedic knowledge of the English language to establish that.

[malkia]

30. OK

So because it is about weapons I have to understand it as “people who are part of a militia can bear arms”? And if it is about potatoes it will mean that “fast food restaurants and everybody else can posses and use French fries”?

[iverglas]

8. I thought April Fool's Day was over

Hey, long time no see.

I so enjoyed our little conversation here. And there was another charming exchange here. Perhaps we can have some more. Perhaps you will even put some effort and good faith into addressing something I've actually said if you decide to talk to me, this time. Imagine the fun we could have.

Of course, your English just didn't seem so "not very good" back then, I gotta say -- didn't notice any missing articles ("the", "a"), or incorrect subject-verb agreements ("what the 2nd amendment mean") at that time. Perhaps if you put some of that same effort (maybe even *less* effort than it took to compose the ungrammatical post here??) and good faith into your grammar, you'd find things went more easily.

Anyhow, I'm sure you'll find lots of new little friends here.

.

[malkia]

21. Thanks!

I really appreciate your compliments! But it takes me forever to write the answers – even with Word. And you can write really fast!
Also, the last time you told me to f@%k off, which I did.
And lastly, I had a surgery, which kept me away from the computer for a while.
And no, I don’t make up my mistakes, as much as I’d like to!

[MrBenchley]

29. Ibida...

Sure is hard to believe that somebody could, in good faith, write something like "You call other people’s opinion "simplistic, dumb and a complete failure" and still try to pose as not "smarter, more enlightened or just more moral " than the rest of us?
Don’t you think your response is a perfect example of the attitude he is talking about?"

and later stumble through...

"I’ve seen many opinions on what the 2nd amendment mean, but can you tell me what do you understand when you see sentence constructed in this way?"

UNLESS they were deliberately trying to channel Andy Kaufman's character from Taxi.

Denk you berry much.

[Low Drag]

24. Big goof is "state"

State = USA.
E.g., separation of church and state. Which state?
The road map to peace in the mid east contains a 2 state solution. Hey, are we going to have 52 states now?

State, as in nation state. The USA is a state.

Militia, look it up with writings from the late 18th century. The National Guard got it's start in 1917.
There you go. That should take care of the grammar issues for the 2nd A.

Go to Thomas at the LOC, historical documents. Their copy of the BOR has the preamble to the Bill of Rights. It leaves no wiggle room.

[MrBenchley]

28. So tell us, drag...

Are you REALLY pretending that the Founding Fathers meant the proposed Palestinian state?

And are you REALLY pretending that the National Guard sprang full-blown out of nothingness in 1917?

[happyslug]

57. Some cites on text of the Second Amendment.

Here are some sites that have arguments on the Text of the Second, many make other arguments also, but I included them because you wanted information regarding the Text of the Second Amendment.


http://www.ccrkba.org/1999Emersoncase2amend.html

http://battleflags.tripod.com/embaras.html

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach/interp.htm

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Dowd1.htm

http://www.gunlawsuits.com/defend/second/articles/twentieth.asp

[malkia]

58. I really apretiate the help!

Thanks!

[happyslug]

59. You are welcome

Now my position on the second amendment is based on a traditional way to interpret part of the Constitution, looking at what the first and second congresses handled the subject.

In 1792 the Second Congress of the United States Under the Constitution passed the "Militia Act of 1792". Section one of that act sets forth how EVERY WHITE MALE was To be armed and equipped.

The reason the term White Male was used was that the South still had slavery and did not want to arm their free blacks (In the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 Justice Taney would use this exception to show that Blacks were NOT Citizens of the US and therefore did not come under any of the Protection of the US Government OR Constitution. The Civil War Amendments to the US Constitution reversed that holding declaring any non-white has the same rights as a white citizen, thus the fact the term "White" was used in 1792 means ALL Citizens, no matter their race, today.).

If you read the Militia Act of 1792 you will notice that the Act states that the Militiaman would BRING HIS OWN WEAPON, SUPPLY HIS OWN AMMUNITION, HAS HIS OWN BACK PACK and no mention is made of pay.

Now Section one mentions three weapons, first a smooth bore musket of what today we would call .69 Caliber. The Act uses the term common at that time period to measure the weight of lead shot that equals .69 Caliber. The term was understood at that time period as meaning a smooth bore capable of shooting a .69 Caliber weapon. This was the same caliber weapon as issued to the Regular Line Infantry of the time period (In fact when the Revolutionary army was disbanded in 1783, Congress left all of the Soldiers to take their Guns home with them as a Bonus, so this caliber of weapon was both known and common at that time period).

The second Weapon Mentioned was a rifle, and here Congress followed what it had done during the Revolution and told the Riflemen to have a rifle AND Ammunition to for their rifle. Unlike "Line" Infantry, Riflemen in the regular US Army supplied their own rifles at that time period.

The Third Weapon was a "Hanger" a term for an officer's sword. The Sword not only indicated rank, it was use to signal commands to the troops in combat situations (The Soldiers watched their Officer's sword to indicate what they were to do, for you could not always hear the Officer's Command over the din of the Battlefield). As a symbol of rank more than a true Weapon I tend to ignore it in terms of what is a Militia Weapon.

Pistols are only mentioned in Section 4 of the Act, and than only for use in horse mounted calvary (For which pistols had been invented for about 200 years before). Section 4 also restricted Calvary to no more than 10% of all troops (Which was the common Calvary to Infantry ratio in the 1800s). Thus I do not believe this has much bearing on what a member of the Militia should have as a weapon and as such no affect as to what the Second Amendment means. These Calvary units would be more in line "Elite" units today as opposed to the light infantry most militia would be if actually activated.

My point is the main form of WEAPON Congress wanted the Militia to have are the company level weapons mentioned in Section 1 of the Militia act of 1792. Section 1 of the Militia Act mention only the .69 Caliber Smooth bore Musket and the Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles of 1792 which where the only company/battalion/Regimental levels weapons of the time period (Cannon were kept at Army or Brigade level as was Calvary)

Company/Battalion/Regimental weapons today's Company means, some sort of "Assault Rifle" (i.e. the M16/AK47), A Machine Gun (M249 or M60), a Grenade launcher (i.e. the M203 and M79 Grenade Launchers), the 60 and 81mm Mortar, the LAW/A4/RPG antitank weapons and eve the Stinger Anti-Aircraft weapon (Which tend to be Battalion Level Weapon along with the .50 Caliber Machine Gun).

Thus in MY OPINION, Pistols can be banned under the Second for pistols are NOT A LIGHT INFANTRY COMPANY/BATTALION/REGIMENTAL Weapons. On the other hand I do NOT believe Assault Rifles can be banned (Unless it is to favor another weapon congress would prefer the Troops to have, i.e. ban the AK47 for Congress wants the Militia to be armed with M16 to ease supply purposes).

Supply and Re-supply are important to any army and as such can be grounds to ban even a Rifle or a Shotgun. The .69 Caliber was picked for US Muskets do to heavy imports of French Muskets in that Caliber between 1776-1783 and these imports was the reason .69 Caliber was picked to be not only the weapon of the Militia but also the main weapon of the Regular Army. It had been found during the Revolution that if everyone had the same caliber weapon it eases supply, but any weapon was better than none. I have a paper on this that goes into more details (I have posted on this website before and DO NOT WANT TO DO SO AGAIN). If you want a copy just E-mail me and I will E-mail a copy.

I am trying to stay on topic which is the TEXTUAL interpretation of the Second, but I have to lean to an interpretation based on WHAT CONGRESS DID when it formed the Militia more than a straight Textual interpretation of the Second. I believe the Militia Act of 1792 is More important than the textual arguments on the Second.


The Militia Act of 1792:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

10 USC 311 (Present version of the Militia Act):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html