QUOTE(charlesandnessa @ Feb 3 2007, 05:11 PM)

a militia and an army are two different things.
Sure, today. Today an army is seen as a professional fighting force while a militia is seen as a rag-tag bunch of nuts who like to play with guns. But that's not how you read a text that was written a long time ago. You read it by being aware of what the words meant
back then. Who fought the Brits? The militia did. They were, in effect, the armed forces of a young American nation. They were the people who fought for and defended freedom. Extrapolating that to todays world, that duty falls to the armed forces. Who protects us from Fidel and the Chinese invasion? The military does.
QUOTE(charlesandnessa @ Feb 3 2007, 05:11 PM)

also, at the time the constitution was written, guns were used for hunting. without them quite a few would have starved.
I realize people hunted to eat and still do. All I'm pointing out is that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment (aren't literal interpretations of the Constitution what conservatives claim to like?) makes no mention of hunting. It gives the right to keep and bear arms to a 'well regulated' group of people who are tasked with defending freedom. Not tasked with hunting deer. In other words, hunters have no second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That they may have the right through other devices is another matter.