Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSky:
Quote:
Originally posted by NY Madman:
[b]A key statement from the dissenting opinion.....

"As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia."

That was my argument before. Whether you're for or against guns - and I'm for (responsible) gun ownership - and whether people like it or not, that seems to be what the words used in the Second Amendment say. Otherwise, why would the militia even be mentioned?[/b]
Let me ask, Who determines "responsible", when the Citizen obtains legally the Firearm in the first place? You can't legislate against a criminal, because they, by definition, will not follow the law.

Militia was a term that was common when the people wrote the Constitution/DOI. If you've read any of the Federalist papers, their style of writing and the words they use differ greatly from what we would say these days. Just read some Laws and see how different we now write.

If todays lawyers wrote the Constitution it would fill the Library of Congress.