[ QUOTE ]
Grammar and language usage was different then than now. Madison's original proposed amendment, with its semicolons, and the actual amendment, with its--to us--stilted language, is what has made for the debate over the years.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I said before you should look at all of the versions of the 2A that were shot down. This argument can easily go both ways.
Also the 14th amendment said:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Then there is this:
"Alongside ...the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ... Congress passed the Freedman's Bureau Act, a sister statute introduced the same day by the same sponsor. ... The Freedman's Bureau Act affirmed that 'laws ... concerning “personal” liberty, “personal” property, “personal” security, and the acquisition, enjoyment and disposition of estate, real and “personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms”
So even if the 2A wasn't a "personal" right you have a problem because the 14th sure as hell seemed to make it a personal right.
[ QUOTE ]
While I have an opinion on the subject, I am not commenting on the wisdom of people being able to own personal weapons or not. I am saying that interpreting the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing people the right to personal arms is dead wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Meh, I've def learned a few things from your posts but you really need to watch at least parts of that documentary.
Here is a nice image for you:
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]