Ed Huntress wrote...
"Jim Wilson" wrote in message
k.net...
I want to know why the framers considered the
freedom to bear arms a right of the people.

See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Then you'll want to look up
annotations regarding the calling of the militia and the Militia Act of
1792. In the annotations, you'll want to note the relative authorities of
the federal government versus those of the states in peacetime versus war.
It's a little tricky to follow but it's worth the effort.

Done. Thank you.

It was left up to the states to decide how to constitute their own militias,
but the Militia Act required the states to do so. Most didn't want the
expense of arming them, which is one likely reason that the militia phrase
was written into the 2nd. It was a reason that all of them would agree to
without complaint.

It seems you were responding primarily to my remark that "if the framers
wanted to avoid vulnerability to invasion, it would have been far more
prudent to *require* that the populace maintain arms." That statement was
in response to Alan's assertion that the second amendment was written to
address the framers' concerns that the nation could not afford an army
but nevertheless needed protection from potential invasion. I am
convinced that the vulnerability was indeed addressed explicitly, but
elsewhere; not in the Second Amendment. I doubt that the framers were
motivated by the reason Alan suggested.

Unless I misunderstand you, I believe my original question stands. The
annotations -- thanks for the reference, BTW -- on the Second Amendment
are interesting and enlightening, but it appears that nothing in them nor
in the amendment itself provides a clear answer as to its purpose [1].
Also, I do not find anything in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
or in its annotations that suggests why the Second Amendment might later
have been proposed (and adopted!).

Do you know of any contemporary or historical references that
directly address why the Second Amendment was made?

Jim

[1] "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." There is discussion in the annotations that some learned
folks have held the opinion that infringing the right is prohibited only
where doing so would interfere with the Militia. That is, Congress cannot
infringe the people's right to bear arms if doing so would hamper a well
regulated Militia. A reasonable interpretation, perhaps, but it is
certainly not clear that that was the intent, nor is it clear to me
without unreasonable convolution how such an infringement might inhibit
the formation or maintenance of a "well regulated Militia."