[Stearns]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

No gun(s) No way.

The right to bear arms was enshrined in the consitution at the same time that the phrase all men are equal. We all know that phrase was and is, hooey!
Women were not equal, blacks were not equal, gays were so unequal we were pretty much being killed/ostracized when outed. The interpretations of these elements of our constitution have, and are still being changed as we become more modern in our thought. When the constitution was written, people needed guns to hunt, to survive. In most cases this is no longer true, though I do not have any problem with people owning single action rifles for hunting if they need them, Automatic weapons of any kind are scary, and very much not necessary for hunting. The point is, we are growing and changing as a society, and the right to bear arms is, to me, no more sacrosanct that any other part of the consitution.

The text of the Second Amendment is, "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."

In 2008, The (US Supreme) court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "...

Well regulated meant regulated by government, not by vigilantis, no matter how organized they were. Most State militias have been subsumed in to the National Guard, and The Federal militia exists under the names of the army. navy, marines, and air force. The folks in theses military organizations clearly have the right to bear arms. Other people - this is my opinion folks - another right protected by the bill of rights - do not have the same clearly defined right to bear arms.

Because of the limitations placed on the right to bears arms by the writers of the constitution, I believe that the ability to limit this right is clearly constitutional - and a damn good idea besides!!!
Smooches,
Keri

Keri,

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't written so people could hunt their food, but rather for the people to be able to defend themselves against and regain their rights against a tyrannical government, should one develop. The framers had already experienced tyrannical rule from a government - England's attempts at taxation without representation - so, they wanted to make sure should another develop, that govt wasn't the only entity with guns.

Your other point that militias were intended to be govt controlled is completely contrary to the purpose of the Amendment - that of the people being able to overthrow an oppressive regime. Why would the framers have wanted a tyrannical govt organizing and regulating the very citizens who would attempt to overthrow it? That's akin to having the fox guard the hen house. Militia referred to every able-bodied man in the state - Jefferson's own papers bore that out. The "well-regulated" was for people within their own groups (militias) to organize and train so that there would be a better chance of success.