Quick- I sincerely thank you for taking the time to give your summary of the decision after reading it.

It is obvoius that being an attorney, you are much more versed than most, if not all of us in regard to these matters.

Having said that however, it seems that both sides are conjecturing conclusions that serve the purpose of soldifying their particular point of view.

You stated that the framers went out of their way to differentiate from the PA and VT "Declarations of Rights" in which terms such as self defense and hunting were explicit and went out of their way to avoid such language.

You also stated in your response that the 2nd amendment was to pay homage to state sovereignity and recognizing the need for a citizen militia.

Here is my question.

And I am askingto truly try understand the other side's argument.

Why then did they include the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" if their intent was solely make a provision for State Militia. The sentence would have made perfect sense and accomplished this supposed sole purpose without it, so why was it included?

This is where I get hung up on the argument Stevens is making.