On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 06:12:38 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 20, 12:40*am, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:01:13 -0500, Ernie wrote:
wrote:

This bull**** came from Thom Hartmann with very little citation of
fact

I don't think you can fault Glover for not citing Hartmann. *Glover did
not take any claim for the idea that an important, underlying foundation
for the 2'nd amendment was linked to the maintenance of slaves and
slavery, or to the idea that "domestic enemies" was a code-word for
native indians.

Emphasis on the 2nd amendment ignores the first half of the one sentence
– “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.” *Switzerland in a way is arming a well regulated militia.
The USA does not.

It seems the intent of the 2nd amendment was not just to put arms in the
hands of the people but to put the people with those arms in a well
regulated militia. *My read of the complete sentence tells me that
ownership of weapons, especially military type, requires membership in a
well regulated militia – a state militia. *Do you think Alex Jones would
be accepted as a member of a state run militia? *Do you think that Alex
Jones (given his philosophy) would want or seek to join a state-run
militia?

Your interpretation makes no sense. *Nowhere does the second require
"the people" to be members of anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nor have multiple Supreme Courts over decades agreed with Ernie's
interpretation.
It's been made abundantly clear by the SC that the right to bear arms
extends to all the people. The "militia" at the time was any and
every able
bodied man, available if necessary.

Right. The "milita" *WAS* the people.