[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."