[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
An argument can be made that the wording of the amendment indicates that the right of the people to bear arms only applies insofar as the militia is concerned. Otherwise, the founders, who were very careful about their choices of words, would just have said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." without the qualifying clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it can't.

Here is the text...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is two independent rights, actually three, that are deliniated here.

First is the right to a militia. Interestingly, I believe the founders EXPECTED each state to have a well regulated militia.

Second is the right for people to own arms. Another interesting note here is the fact that there are no limitations. I assume that it would be perfectly acceptable for a citizen to own a cannon if you asked the founding fathers. Whether this translates directly into thermonuclear weapons is another question entirely.

Third is the right for people to bear arms. In modern times we have not allowed people to have a concealed weapon without a permit. We have limited where people can take their weapons. I somewhat agree that weapons should not be taken into a bar, or a church, or a school. But we need to be VERY careful about losing our RIGHT to have weapons, and carry them.

I am a big fan of Virginia's "open carry" law.