[Magdalen] My County responds.

[Sally Davies]

Indeed - I can see your point totally Mike!

Translated into modern society it seems to affirm the right of the "free
state" to have an arms bearing militia (police, army, rangers, whatever)
but not necessarily the right of individuals whose use of arms is
subject no authority but their own.

Sally D



On Saturday, December 5, 2015, M J _Mike_ Logsdon <mjl at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >>>We have huge issues with guns here but unlike the USA, gun ownership has
> never been considered an absolute unquestioned right, written into the
> Constitution.<<<
>
> Same here.  Second Amendment:
>
> "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."
>
> Gun rights idiots lose the ability to read once they reach the comma.
> Your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, WITHIN THE CONTEXT
> of a well regulated militia.  Ain't got the former, ain't got the latter.
>
> This is just so simple.  Gotta [love] [so-called] [U.S.] democracy.
>