Muscatine

Fred Maslack is a "State" Representative.  This is a Vermont state issue.  It is their constitution that is most relevant.

It is up to Vermont to legislate just how heavily each shall be armed and which citizens are exempted, if any.  Like most issues this should be a state matter.

It looks like someone else is the "doofus" here.

from my original post:

"Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the                   people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who  are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."

Although your question followed BDI's post it was not directed to her.  "Whenever I see a rant about gun control, I have to ask what does the part of the second amendment that says "A well regulated militia" mean?"

"If you say everything before "the right of the people..." has no meaning, tell me why did the framers put it in?"

Since I did not say what you interpreted I should allow this to slide.  But since I am the reasonable one  I will give what my opinion is.  The country did not have a well established military and they wanted the people to have the right to have arms so if needed for the militia they can be there and armed at a moments notice.

"Incidentally, elsewhere "people" has not been limited to citizens, but included all the people.   Why have you limited it?   Should that be the case here?"

Tit for tat Mal.  I interpret the constitution to apply to citizens of this country.  I guess my belief is framed around the first words.  "We the people of the United States"

"Another thing for you to ponder.   Wikipedia says that the version that was submitted to the states and ratified by them didn't  have the first and third commas."

Tit for tat again.  Although Wikipedia is probably the MOST unreliable source of information since it can be altered by anyone the statement is almost true.  At the time of the writing of the constitution when a copy was made it was done by hand and there are variations (in punctuation and capitalization) as those that copied it did not conform to the exact original.  To help you save face here I will submit that there are versions that have one comma and others that have up to four commas but I still hold that it is important to note that a reasonable person would interpret it to mean that we the people of the united states have the right to keep and bear arms.

:Now has the opportunity that there is some hope for her, by simply answering "Thank you for the explanation.  Now I understand"."

Fox you were chuckling when you posted that, right?