Quote Originally Posted by Joe Lerch
It does, but why do you ignore the first part of the amendment where it's associated with maintainng a militia? You can't simply pretend it's not there, and that accountsfor the different treatment. If te amendment didn't include that language, I might agree with you.
This brings up the definition of milita, wich is a whole seperate sub-argument in itself. It is my understanding that the definition of what constituted a milita was left to the decree of the individual states. In some states I think it was restricted to landholders while in others it was every able bodied adult male while in still others the milita constituted only those who volunteered to serve. I guess that today the milita could be as few people as those who serve in the states own little army (who has official ones any more) or as many as every voting age adult. Its kind of open to interpetation.