Re: Handgun ban in U.S. capital could reach Supreme Court

> "Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1190340183.822207.25630@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Leif speaking:  The entire first half of the Second Amendment tells us
> that the amendment is about the im****tance of a well regulated militia
> in the security of a free state.  If the amendment had been about
> individual  gun use, Madison would have said so.

NOPE
TOTAL BULL****

The (incomplete) phrase:
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
State"
is simply a JUSTIFICATION and NOT a restriction on the 2nd part which
goes:
    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
        shall not be infringed."

Notce a couple of things
    (which have REPEATEDLY been pointed out to you already)
The second phrase is a COMPLETE sentence in and of itself, while the first

phrase is an INCOMPLETE sentence in and of itself
Also the second phrase is in NO WAY restricted by the first
Finally the second phrase is VERY specific in stating
    "..the right of the people.."
and
    "..to keep and bear arms.."
It is SPECIFICALLY about INDIVIDUAL rights
and
    SPECIFICALLY about the right to have, keep with themselves and thus on

their persons
        ARMS
And "arms" included guns then and so does today.