The Second & Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution: When one considers the wording of the Tenth Amendment one can see the logic of why the two, argumentatively dissimilar rights are combined into a single sentence in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Which is to say that those powers not delegated to the national government or prohibited to be exercised by the States are granted to the States or to the people. Section Eight Article I of the United States Constitution grants certain powers only to the national government including the power: “To provide and maintain a Navy” (Clause 13) –ergo a Minnesota, or California State Navy has never been allowed under the US Constitution – it is one of those powers delegated solely to the National Government. The power of a State to “enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation” is totally forbidden by Article I, Section Ten, Clause 1 of the Constitution (some may however, claim that the "Tobacco Settlement would violate this clause). Under the Tenth Amendment all activities that are not the sole purview of the national government and are not forbidden to the States “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” With this concept in mind let us now reread the Second Amendment: “Amendment II: 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.” The first part of the sentence (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) insures the State the right to maintain a Militia AKA an Army (but not a Navy), while the last part of the sentence (as in the Tenth Amendment) speaks to “…the right of the people [in this instance] to keep and bear Arms…”. Hence the framers of the Second Amendment intended the right to keep and bear Arms to be a right of both the individual States and the people. While some argue that the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment pertains to the right of a State government to maintain a Militia (generally failing to give any credence to the concept of an individual right), this author would submit that this right, whatever its historical foundation was “trumped” by the events culminating in 1865. It seems incompressible to this author that any of the proponents of this interpretation of the Second Amendment would support the concept of say Florida having a State Militia, under the command of the Governor, being armed with nuclear missiles.