In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes: -> > This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According -> > to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined  -> > structure and follows nationally uniform regulations. ->  -> Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!  Perhaps you should, reread Federal 29 which deals exclusively with the "well regulated malitia."  Here is what is says about its character:  	 To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes 	 of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through 	 military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to 	 acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the 	 character of a well-regulated militia,   It also talks about the "well regulated militia" having a nationally uniform in structure and disipline.    I will note you did quote the end of this particular paragraph which states:      	Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with 	respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed 	and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it 	will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of 	a year.  But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it  requires a continually standing committee of organizers.    Since a well regulate militia is nationally uniform in structure and disipline, and meet once or twice a year to train, how can you claim a "well regulated militia" is not well organized.  But I will concide  a "well organized militia" is not necessarily a "well regulated militia."   Several people have stated that the "well organized militia" is what is defined under 10 USC 311, which states  	The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied  	males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in  	section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are,  	or who have made a declaration of intention to become,  	citizens of the United States and of female citizents of  	the United States who are commissioned officers of the  	National Guard.  This deos define the militia, but were is the adjective "well regulated." 10 USC 311 does not define a "well regualed militia" in any way, shape,  or form.  It only defines who can become part of a well regulated militia The Federalist Papers CLEARLY define the "well regualed militia" as a proper SUBSET of the militia.  In the same paragraph quoted above, it talk above "disciplining all the militia of the United States" so they fit the "character of a well-regulated militia."  This is what the paragraph states about the associated costs:  	It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor  	of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the  	present numbers of the people, would not fall far short  	of the whole expense of the civil  establishments of all  	the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the  	mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, 	would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not  	succeed, because it would not long be endured.   Another quote provide by Charles Scripter is: James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General Welfare" clause):  	"Nothing is more natural nor common than first 	to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a 	recital of particulars."  So the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall  not be infringed" must either qualify or explain the phrase "a well  regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."   The definition of "explain" as stated in "The American Hertitage Dictionary of the Enlish Language" The New College Edition, 1982 is: 	1) To make plain or comprehensible; remove obscruity from; 	   elucidate: "It was the economists who undertook to explain  	   this puzzle" 	2) To define; explicate; expound: He explained his plan. 	3) To offer reasons for or a cause of; an answer for' justify: 	   explain an error The second phrase clearly does not "explain" the first, therefore the second phrase must "qualify" the first.  The definition given for "qualify" is: 	1) To describe by enumerating the characteristics or qualities 	   of; characterize. 	2) To make competent or suitable for office, position, or  	   task. 	3) To give legal power to; make legally capable. 	4) To modify, limit, or restrict, as giving exceptions. 	5) To make less harsh or severe; moderate 	6) Grammar: To modify the meaning of (a word or phrase) Since "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not describe, modify or make less harsh anything and it has nothing to do with grammar or some sort of position or task. By process of elimination it must fall into definition #3.  And since #3 deals with legal power, the same thing the Constitution does, it must be the correct definition in this case.  Therefore, "the right  of the people to keep and bear Arms" gives legal power to the "well  regualated militia" and this legal power "shall not be infringed".    I thank you very much Mr Scripter, you have provided me with more  evidence that the Second Amendment only concerns itseft with the  people's right to form well regulate militia, and says very little  about the right of an untrained person to "keep and bear" a .50 caliber machine gun.  And since I, totally untrained in the use of any firearm (something I personly have meant to correct by going to a NRA gun safety course and joining a gun club), cannot legally buy such a machine gun, I conclude the courts and democraticly elected congress agree with me.  -> So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy -> our Liberties and Rights.  I mean "to destory our Liberties and Rights."  Is that why a participate in the discussion of exactly what "our Libertues and Rights" are?  I  force my version of "our Liberties and Rights" by begining statements of what "our Liberties and Rights" with "All that the Second Amendment  clearly states to me."   Using expressions, such as "states to me,"  clearly mean I intend to force my views on others?  I don't think so.  So in effort not to force my views and not "to destory our Liberties and Rights,"  I state that nothing I have written, or will write, in the matter of "Liberties and Rights" is the final word.  For I am only one person among many and the final word on "Liberties and Rights" cleary and irrevocably belongs to the many.