Original: Quicksilver
The Petitioners proffered a very strong argument, alleging that the definition of "keep and bear" is relegated strictly to militia service.
Secondly, during the ratification process, there was significant tension among the colonies to retain the right to raise a State-Army as a check-and-balance on the Federal Government. A federal army posed a direct threat to state sovereignty. There is voluminous support for this, and it is largely undisputed.
Jeff - I understand that, but unless I am misunderstanding Fran, the Stevens argument is that the only"right" granted to individuals was to serve in a state militia if it became necessary.
That is why I am asking for clarification from their perspective then as to why the additional phrase "
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was added if the framers were so careful and deliberate in their wording. It would seem to be unecessay and ambiguous if Steven's argument was valid, but maybe I am missing something, at least from "their" perspective.