BlueMan

I guess I should have quoted, but the rant was a reponse to the assertion (in this case Mooseman articulated it) that the 2nd can be read to say that only "the militia" (Which many try to define as the National Guard) has the right to keep and bear arms. It's not an argument I buy, and I guess it's a bit of a hot button.

I am perfectly aware that there must be some reasonable regulation, and in all actuality, a reading of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights says will show that -any- regulatory authority resides in the states.

Per the BoR Amendment X, the federal government is given no authority to regulate the ownership of firearms, save -perhaps- their trade between states under the interstate commerce clause. It's a power that is not enumerated to the Fed in the Constitution, and not denied the state.

The regulations I agree with include liscensing (basically a competence check, and to ensure training is provided, after all, the "militia" (defined, by the way, as "1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.") is to be "well-regulated", meaning trained and directed. So, I can agree with reasonably applied training requirement, and a liscence. I allow for the fact that minors should not be allowed to use firearms except under the supervision of an adult. I believe convicted felons (particularly those convicted of a violent crime) should forfeit their 2nd amendment right, as should those with a verifiable mental illness that would preclude them from responsible ownership. and I believe gun (and other weapons, as they are also "arms") crimes should be severly punished.

However, the states should prudently take a clue from Amenment 2. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear in itself. There is a fine line that must be walked between infringement and prudent regulation.

Now, realizing that the Founders had not concieved of Milspec weaponry such as tanks and nuclear weapons, the 2nd -can-, I think, be reasonably construed to be limited to personal arms. However, I don't agree with the so-called "assault weapons" ban, which really does nothing more than prohibit the sale of a few types of guns that look dangerous. If someone decides to purchase a semi-automatic, or even automatic rifle, I don't think that should to be regulated. Again, abuse of the right should be swiftly and severely dealt with. Concealed carry should be allowed. It has been shown to reduce the crime rate wherever it is applied. Violent crimes decrease when the predators don't know which prey might have teeth.

Some say "Let the police handle it". A number of police officers, even, will tell you that most of the time, they will arrive only in time to clean up the mess, question witnesses, and hopefully catch the criminal. Police can't be everywhere, and it is up to the citizen to take reasonable measures to protect him/herself.

Gun control laws serve no purpose except to remove the ability of the law abiding to even the score with those who do not obey said laws. Criminals, by definition, don't give a rip about gun control laws. They will have their guns anyway. The second amendment was enacted to protect the right of the PEOPLE to defend themselves against criminal elements and tyrants. It's not for hunting or recreational shooting, or whatever, although those are a convenient side benefit. But as long as those who would harm others have access to weaponry, so should the citizenry, and so "take their guns away" is the wrong answer. Well-trained, -responsible- gun ownership works far better, and is inline with the intent of the Founders.

I appear to have written a book. Sorry.