>>>>>>>>I assume you know that when that amendment was drawn up, the drafters had no idea that it
>>>>>>>>would be interpreted to mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry would have a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When the constitution was drawn up, every Tom, Dick and Harry DID have a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Well, probably not, but I take your point.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Probably not?? The average person depended on their firearm for hunting as well as defense. Not
>>>>sure how that's an arguable point.
>>>>
>>>Not everyone lived in rural areas at that time. There were actual cities even then where [probably] most people did not walk around with a gun.
>>
>>
>>But they owned them, nonetheless.
>
>Maybe, maybe not.

Is silly of you to argue this. Guns were commonplace then, as they are now.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Are you implying that everybody in the U.S. who owns arms of some sort is part of a
>>>>>>>>well regulated militia, and not just some idiot with a gun?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>So then, all those who aren't, should have to give up their guns because they aren't living within the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Ok, I think that's fair.
>>>>
>>>>That's a strange interpretation of the second amendment.
>>>>
>>>>My take:
>>>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
>>>>A milita is needed to ensure freedom
>>>>
>>>>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>>>>People can have their guns.
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing in the amendment that says guns are only for the militia.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If allowing the citizenry to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment is not for the explicit purpose of having a well regulated militia, then why bother to mention the 'well regulated militia' at all. Why wouldn't they have written the 2nd amendement to simply say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the ownership of guns is not resulting in a well regulated militia, then I contend that it is not fulfilling the purposes of the 2nd amendment and should probably be abandoned, or (worse) updated to remove that phrase.
>>
>>Note Section II here : http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC1
>>
>>"Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion"
>>
>>"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State"
>>
>>The two parts of the amendment are separate issues. Seems pretty clear to me.
>>
>I don't see it. I still see no reason whatsoever for the mention of the militia in the amendment if the whole purpose of the amendement was simply for the purpose of allowing any fool to own a gun. Where does it say in the amendment that you can take away somebody's gun if the citizen has been in a rebellion? All it says is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
>That's a nice interpretation from ucla, but it seems to me to be more based on ideology than on the actual words of the amendment. They appear to be reading waaayyy between the lines.

UCLA didn't write that.

That site shows the actual text of 5 states who sent their ratification of the constition back
to congress. It show's their interpretations of the second amendment, which is that the milita
is one thing, and the citizens rigt to own guns is another.