On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:11:08 GMT, Strabo wrote:

In OT Guns more Guns on Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, by
Cliff, we read:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:32:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snipped
I'm not following your question

Ed,
At one time he nation pretty much depended on
calling up militias for any military needs.
At one time the 2nd ammendment was enacted.
Currently, and for many decades, the US has
had a standing professional military ...

But what is the cronology?
Was the 2nd enacted before the standing military
existed? I suspect so but .... in which case it was
in support of the prior militias, which might be considered to
nolonger exist.

Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Except that states don't have 'rights'. Individuals
have Rights.

Wrong.

The BOR was included to obligate the Federal government
to ensure those Rights, to protect them. Not for collectives,
not for classes, not for states, but for each individual.

You are always this confused?
Ever tried a Jr. HS Civics class? History class?
Clearly not any logic classes.
--
Cliff