To: ManyMoose who wrote (262033 ) 6/8/2002 1:37:05 AM From: Kevin Rose Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769669 Dave, this just proves my point (my, you are a fast typist). Militias evolved from loosely organized bodies made up of all able bodied citizens, with minimal training, to today's well organized and trained National Guard. Clearly, the right of the militia to bear arms has been maintained. Just as clearly, this right does not extend to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants to play militia. A nice history of militia, which doesn't have a thing to do with the argument. Here's something else that does. From Supreme Court, 1939 U.S. v. Miller Conservative Justice James McReynolds wrote for the Court: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."