Supreme Court To Rule On D.c. Gun Ban

[BrotherBuford]

This has the potential to be HUGE. If the court follows the drafters' of the Constiitution original intent, the historical significance of the language construction, and just plain logic their ruling could just knock out the tenuous legal basis all gun control stands upon in the U.S.

I don't like Bush or much of what he has done to this country, but the justices that now stand on the Supreme Court due to his appointments may be what is needed to overturn 70 years of bad laws, starting with D.C.'s 1976 ban. The oft-quoted but misused Miller case may be a historical note and nothing more after this. This particular case does not involve a bootlegger that was entrapped (and was murdered before his case was heard, so there was no defense) but rather a group of people who have committed no crime petitioning for redress of grievances.

This case has already made it up the appeals ladder... D.C. was the loser on appeal. Both parties want the Supreme Court to rule on it.

Justices to Rule on D.C. Gun Ban

EDIT: typo corrections Edited November 21, 2007 by BrotherBuford

[oolatec]

This has the potential to be HUGE. If the court follows the drafters' of the Constiitution original intent, the historical significance of the language construction, and just plain logic their ruling could just knock out the tenuous legal basis all gun control stands upon in the U.S.

I don't like Bush or much of what he has done to this country, but the justices that now stand on the Supreme Court due to his appointments may be what is needed to overturn 70 years of bad laws, starting with D.C.'s 1976 ban. The oft-quoted but misused Miller case may be a historical note and nothing more after this. This particular case does not involve a bootlegger that was entrapped (and was murdered before his case was heard, so there was no defense) but rather a group of people who have committed no crime petitioning for redress of grievances.

This case has already made it up the appeals ladder... D.C. was the loser on appeal. Both parties want the Supreme Court to rule on it.

Justices to Rule on D.C. Gun Ban

EDIT: typo corrections

An unarmed populace is the gateway to oppression and tyranny. Look at Burma... Tibet...

[TheScotsman]

This has the potential to be HUGE. If the court follows the drafters' of the Constiitution original intent, the historical significance of the language construction, and just plain logic their ruling could just knock out the tenuous legal basis all gun control stands upon in the U.S.

I don't like Bush or much of what he has done to this country, but the justices that now stand on the Supreme Court due to his appointments may be what is needed to overturn 70 years of bad laws, starting with D.C.'s 1976 ban. The oft-quoted but misused Miller case may be a historical note and nothing more after this. This particular case does not involve a bootlegger that was entrapped (and was murdered before his case was heard, so there was no defense) but rather a group of people who have committed no crime petitioning for redress of grievances.

This case has already made it up the appeals ladder... D.C. was the loser on appeal. Both parties want the Supreme Court to rule on it.

Justices to Rule on D.C. Gun Ban

EDIT: typo corrections

An unarmed populace is the gateway to oppression and tyranny. Look at Burma... Tibet...

Being killed by the government you put into power seems to be a common pastime since the middle of the 19th century.
Cambodia 2,000,000
Argentina 700,000 (est)
Rwanda 800,000
Guatemala 95,000
Kurdistan Some estimates as low as 25,000 and over 1,000,000
Bosnia 200,000
Russia under Lenin, and Stalin 9,000,000 - 12,000,000
Germany 7,000,000
Poland unk
Nicaragua 250,000
South Africa Poorly reported, but estimated over 1,000,000
Somalia Ongoing
Kashmir 100,000
Ireland 1,500,000 over 10 years
Darfur Ongoing with no end in sight... while the wonderful UN does absolutely nothing
America How many Indian tribes were there? How about the lynchings in the South?
China Who is counting?

Yep, there have been a few. I am sure I missed some, these I recall right away.

[oolatec]

This has the potential to be HUGE. If the court follows the drafters' of the Constiitution original intent, the historical significance of the language construction, and just plain logic their ruling could just knock out the tenuous legal basis all gun control stands upon in the U.S.

I don't like Bush or much of what he has done to this country, but the justices that now stand on the Supreme Court due to his appointments may be what is needed to overturn 70 years of bad laws, starting with D.C.'s 1976 ban. The oft-quoted but misused Miller case may be a historical note and nothing more after this. This particular case does not involve a bootlegger that was entrapped (and was murdered before his case was heard, so there was no defense) but rather a group of people who have committed no crime petitioning for redress of grievances.

This case has already made it up the appeals ladder... D.C. was the loser on appeal. Both parties want the Supreme Court to rule on it.

Justices to Rule on D.C. Gun Ban

EDIT: typo corrections

An unarmed populace is the gateway to oppression and tyranny. Look at Burma... Tibet...

Being killed by the government you put into power seems to be a common pastime since the middle of the 19th century.
Cambodia 2,000,000
Argentina 700,000 (est)
Rwanda 800,000
Guatemala 95,000
Kurdistan Some estimates as low as 25,000 and over 1,000,000
Bosnia 200,000
Russia under Lenin, and Stalin 9,000,000 - 12,000,000
Germany 7,000,000
Poland unk
Nicaragua 250,000
South Africa Poorly reported, but estimated over 1,000,000
Somalia Ongoing
Kashmir 100,000
Ireland 1,500,000 over 10 years
Darfur Ongoing with no end in sight... while the wonderful UN does absolutely nothing
America How many Indian tribes were there? How about the lynchings in the South?
China Who is counting?

Yep, there have been a few. I am sure I missed some, these I recall right away.

And the majority of them, from what I can tell, have/had a largely unarmed populace. This is exactly what the 2nd Ammendment is for.

[manntis]

And the majority of them, from what I can tell, have/had a largely unarmed populace. This is exactly what the 2nd Ammendment is for.

A tired and false old argument. Those who get a woody by keeping a gun in their house "in case the government goes to far" miss the entire point. The 2nd amendment specifically refers to an organized militia being vital to the security of the nation, not "home defence" or some phantom revolt against the government.

When the government was drafting kids and sending them to Vietnam, did you rise up?
When the government brought in the Patriot Act, allowing sneak and peek inspections of your home, did you rise up?
When the government declared wire taps without warrants on US citizens were within its powers, did you rise up?

No. So you can cram your "it protects us from the government" propeganda. Ghandi was unarmed, and he did just fine. Yet some gun owners Stateside keep saying it's to protect them against the government, while failing to protect themselves against the government. Even the ones who believe they ARE rising up against the government for perceived wrongs don't use guns. They use letter bombs, trucks full of ANFO, etc.

BTW - people using your argument often cite Nazi Germany as another example - conveniently forgetting that even as rifles were rounded up the citizenry were provided with arms training and could easily join a number of organizations (Hitler Youth, one of the many SS branches, etc) that would give them access to rifles and other arms. Not to mention there WERE resistance organizations within Nazi Germany.

Oh, and there were barely any rifles amongst Rwanda's civilian population either. They made due with machetes in an all-out war on their government and their neighbours.

And another post-script: You think Bosnia, South Africa, etc. were an "unarmed populace"? Boy, are you misinformed... Edited November 22, 2007 by manntis

[oolatec]

And the majority of them, from what I can tell, have/had a largely unarmed populace. This is exactly what the 2nd Ammendment is for.

A tired and false old argument. Those who get a woody by keeping a gun in their house "in case the government goes to far" miss the entire point. The 2nd amendment specifically refers to an organized militia being vital to the security of the nation, not "home defence" or some phantom revolt against the government.

When the government was drafting kids and sending them to Vietnam, did you rise up?
When the government brought in the Patriot Act, allowing sneak and peek inspections of your home, did you rise up?
When the government declared wire taps without warrants on US citizens were within its powers, did you rise up?

No. So you can cram your "it protects us from the government" propeganda. Ghandi was unarmed, and he did just fine. Yet some gun owners Stateside keep saying it's to protect them against the government, while failing to protect themselves against the government. Even the ones who believe they ARE rising up against the government for perceived wrongs don't use guns. They use letter bombs, trucks full of ANFO, etc.

BTW - people using your argument often cite Nazi Germany as another example - conveniently forgetting that even as rifles were rounded up the citizenry were provided with arms training and could easily join a number of organizations (Hitler Youth, one of the many SS branches, etc) that would give them access to rifles and other arms. Not to mention there WERE resistance organizations within Nazi Germany.

Oh, and there were barely any rifles amongst Rwanda's civilian population either. They made due with machetes in an all-out war on their government and their neighbours.

And another post-script: You think Bosnia, South Africa, etc. were an "unarmed populace"? Boy, are you misinformed...

Wow... I said majority.

The draft? That's a perfectly legal thing.

Patriot Act? What about it? The Government hasn't snuck a peek at my house. Is there a black helicopter circling your house? Perhaps they are spying on you. Boogity boo!

Warrantless wiretaps? You talking about Project Eschelon? That was in the Democrat 90's haydays, and everything was perfect then, so why bother to mess things up?

When we see on the streets of NYC what is happening in Burma, Venezuela, Cuba, etc... that is what I am talking about. Our Government, as much as you appear to distrust/dislike it, hasn't come anywhere near that... no... not even by a long shot. And they won't.

And whatever did happen to those resistance groups in Hitler's Germany? Did they stop him? The answer is obviously no. And why is that? You know the only means of resistance groups like The White Rose had against Hitler? Printing leaflets. A lot of good George Wittenstein's 2 years in the German military did... so scratch off the idea of "being supplied with arms when you joined the Hitler Youth/SS/etc" as any sort of avenue towards resistance. If anything, that made it even more difficult for all the anti-Hitler groups to operate and communicate. Every aspect of German life was controlled. Buying stacks of paper would even get you locked up/killed. Why? Because the populace was unarmed and Hitler knew he could get away with whatever he pleased.

Are we anything like that? No. Now ask yourself why. The answer? 2nd Amendment. The term "militia" does not have the same meaning today as it did back in 1789, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" really has no other meaning, does it?

[manntis]

Wow... I said majority.

The draft? That's a perfectly legal thing.

So are sneak and peek inspections. Doesn't mean they should be.

Patriot Act? What about it? The Government hasn't snuck a peek at my house.

How do you know? If you knew, it wouldn't be 'sneak', would it?

And you're trying to slip out of the point - the government is meant to serve the people in their pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Drafting them into wars the majority doesn't support, or infringing on their liberty by denying them right to privacy, is counter to the government's purpose.

Meanwhile, you claim you're armed so the government can't go too far. I put to you directly whether you've used your firearm to object to erosion of your liberties. Instead, you attempt to deflect. So we know your answer is all talk, no action, Dirty Harry.

Warrantless wiretaps? You talking about Project Eschelon? That was in the Democrat 90's haydays, and everything was perfect then, so why bother to mess things up?

Ooh. Let's turn a government issue into a partisan argument, and not bother to address whether the government should be doing it in the first place... Nice straw man you have there.

And whatever did happen to those resistance groups in Hitler's Germany? Did they stop him? The answer is obviously no.

The answer is they came damned close. The bombers nearly killed him, remember? Not to mention the Czech resistance that took out Heydrich (the architech of the final solution), etc.

Oh right - White Rose printed leaflets, therefore in your mind they were ineffectual. Guess what? The RAF and US Army Airforce reprinted those leaflets and dropped them on other parts of Germany. Because they were ineffectual? No. Because they eroded Hitler's popular support.

Your ignorance of history is not my problem.

Ahe term "militia" does not have the same meaning today as it did back in 1789, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" really has no other meaning, does it?

I see. If you ASSUME a redefinition of certain words in the sentance, then discount those words, then the meaning is clear. Jeez, you argue the 2nd Amendment like fringe cults argue religion. Redefine the topic, redefine the other person's position, change everything to match what you want, then declare yourself right. WOw, that's really convincing [/sarcasm] Edited November 23, 2007 by manntis

[oolatec]

Wow... I said majority.

The draft? That's a perfectly legal thing.

So are sneak and peek inspections. Doesn't mean they should be.

Patriot Act? What about it? The Government hasn't snuck a peek at my house.

How do you know? If you knew, it wouldn't be 'sneak', would it?

And you're trying to slip out of the point - the government is meant to serve the people in their pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Drafting them into wars the majority doesn't support, or infringing on their liberty by denying them right to privacy, is counter to the government's purpose.

Meanwhile, you claim you're armed so the government can't go too far. I put to you directly whether you've used your firearm to object to erosion of your liberties. Instead, you attempt to deflect. So we know your answer is all talk, no action, Dirty Harry.

Warrantless wiretaps? You talking about Project Eschelon? That was in the Democrat 90's haydays, and everything was perfect then, so why bother to mess things up?

Ooh. Let's turn a government issue into a partisan argument, and not bother to address whether the government should be doing it in the first place... Nice straw man you have there.

And whatever did happen to those resistance groups in Hitler's Germany? Did they stop him? The answer is obviously no.

The answer is they came damned close. The bombers nearly killed him, remember? Not to mention the Czech resistance that took out Heydrich (the architech of the final solution), etc.

Oh right - White Rose printed leaflets, therefore in your mind they were ineffectual. Guess what? The RAF and US Army Airforce reprinted those leaflets and dropped them on other parts of Germany. Because they were ineffectual? No. Because they eroded Hitler's popular support.

Your ignorance of history is not my problem.

Ahe term "militia" does not have the same meaning today as it did back in 1789, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" really has no other meaning, does it?

I see. If you ASSUME a redefinition of certain words in the sentance, then discount those words, then the meaning is clear. Jeez, you argue the 2nd Amendment like fringe cults argue religion. Redefine the topic, redefine the other person's position, change everything to match what you want, then declare yourself right. WOw, that's really convincing [/sarcasm]

Point A: sneak and peak... paranoid?

Point B: The draft, life, liberty yadda yadda... is there a draft? I have freedom, love my life, and appreciate the freedoms this country continues to offer to this day. What freedoms have you or I lost? Do tell.

Point C: I'm armed to prevent the Government from going to far... like I have said... our Government hasn't gotten anywhere near that bad. The 2nd Amendment clearly states it's a citizens right to keep and bare arms. Are you for taking that freedom away?

Point D: Partisanship... well, it seems you are for gun control... that's a Liberal position. It was a simple observation. Correct me if I am wrong.

Point E: The resistance... coming close and actually succeeding are two different things. In your eyes, they came close... the way I see it... they failed and Hitler was allowed to continue with his ways. Hitler's popular support was eroded? That's why WWII got so far, right? I mean, if he was unpopular with the people of Germany, surely they would have removed him from power (by attacking him with leaflets no doubt). But remind me what happened... I think it was in 1945... German citizens removed him from power because of the US leaflets that were dropped all over the country that eroded his popularity, right? That had to be it!

Point F: "Militia" circia 1789 vs. "Militia" circa 2007. You can't seriously believe that word has the same meaning back then as it does now... then again...

The rest is just blathering. I am not redefining anything. Especially your position. But in case there is any doubt, why don't you tell us your position regarding the 2nd Amendment and our right to keep and bare arms.

Are you for or against it? Edited November 23, 2007 by oolatec

[TheScotsman]

The militia is clearly not the standing army in any form, anyone that states they are demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the constitution, and the language within it. They further prove they are but more sheeple following some phrase dribbling forth from some activist group.

The preamble to the amendments clearly states the first 10 amendments were restrictions on the governments powers, and not granting them any. To assume militia means any standing army/NG would be granting a power.

The preamble:
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

More, you must keep in mind Madison stated that the constitution was to be understood on it's text from a historical perspective. The authors were fluent in Latin, and knew that the Latin "militia" meant fit for military service, not an armed body of people. The proper Latin for an armed defense unit would have been "volgu militum"

Also, in article 1 the constitution grants the congress power to raise, and equip armies. Why didn't they call them militia there? More, it indicates that a militia is not equipped by the government. Then still, in Article 1 they give congress the power to call and organize the militia in times of need. Why call them armies in one paragraph, and a militia in the next... unless they are not the same! Note that congress does not have the power it provision, or equip the militia. Is the NG provisioned by, or equipped by congress? Hmmmm... they must be the standing army then! (Any NG guys buying their own tanks that you know of?)

In the Oxford English Dictionary of 1800 (the oldest in my collection, ya, I have a dictionary collection, pretty sick, isn't it.) the word "regulated" is defined as "working properly and reliably, to put in good order, or to adjust as to ensure accuracy of". The meaning of regulated as controlled came with the industrial revolution. A similar, yet vulgar example is the word gay, it had a completely different meaning as close as 1955. Are you similarly inferring that the use of the word in text of that era should be adjusted to it's more modern meaning?

Washington himself repeatedly referred to the local civilians in an area as "militia" and requested his generals make up their deficiencies in numbers from the "best regulated militia that can be got." What, they were supposed to pop on down to the guard armory? Militia is obviously the local farmer, merchant, or minister.

The fifth amendment furthers this point:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger...

They obviously state the LAND or NAVAL FORCES, or in the militia, this indicates the militia is not the "land forces" raised, and provisioned by article 1. The "when in actual service in times of war" indicates that the militia is not regularly engaged in service.

Common law was a basis of much of the constitution, and the right to self defense goes back to Merry old England, and the English Declaration of Rights, affirming the right of it's citizens to have arms for their defense suitable to their condition. The constitution at no place revokes any of what was "common law", but rather limits governments ability to restrict it.

[Scheetz]

This is a huge issue as everyone should be involved in it. If they let DC stand then every other Dem. state is going to ban firearms as well. Sorry, but every jackass that says the 2nd Amend. stands for a militia only needs to read the second fucking half of it.


To those who are for taking guns away. I'll be the first in line to shake your hand with a big thank you when you watch the 1st, 3rd, 4th and all the other amendments go out the door. But thats ok, because guns are gone, so we can all live in safety.

You say we did nothing about passing of laws because we stand that our guns will keep the government in check. So I ask you this, what the fuck did YOU do about the laws being passed? What are YOU doing about smoking bans, what are YOU doing about the illegal immigration acts, what are YOU doing to stop bad laws being passed!?


Thats what I thought.

[manntis]

Point A: sneak and peak... paranoid?

Right - because only the paranoid dislike government stripping away liberties, right? Good thing the founding fathers were paranoid and rose up, instead of listening to the likes of you.

Point B: The draft, life, liberty yadda yadda... is there a draft? I have freedom, love my life, and appreciate the freedoms this country continues to offer to this day. What freedoms have you or I lost? Do tell.

The freedom to move about without papers, for one. And yes, there was a draft - I did specify Vietnam. Or does your misunderstanding of the amendment stem from general reading comprehension problems? If so, I apologise and hope you find a good literacy tutor.

Point C: I'm armed to prevent the Government from going to far... like I have said... our Government hasn't gotten anywhere near that bad. The 2nd Amendment clearly states it's a citizens right to keep and bare arms.

No, it states the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. An important distinction that many continue to gloss over.

Point D: Partisanship... well, it seems you are for gun control... that's a Liberal position. It was a simple observation. Correct me if I am wrong.

Consider yourself corrected. The world is not binary, and while one party or another might lean more to one side or the other on an issue, that does not mean the issue is inherently partisan and only members of one party may support it. Example: Conservatives traditionally have been fiscally conservative. is Bush's daministration?

By the way - the definition of "liberal" is "for progress and reform", not "democrat", "environmentalist tree hugger", or any of the other attributes that some people use when misuing the word "liberal". Look it up.

Point E: The resistance... coming close and actually succeeding are two different things. In your eyes, they came close... the way I see it...

Horsefeathers. Your argument was that disarming the populace is a way for government to prevent the people from rising up. I argued there were active resistance movements in Nazi Germany. An accident of table leg placement does not negate that argument.

Point F: "Militia" circia 1789 vs. "Militia" circa 2007. You can't seriously believe that word has the same meaning back then as it does now... then again...

And you can't seriously believe that you can just decide "it doesn't mean the same thing, so we can discount half the sentance written into law by the founding fathers".

Are you for or against it?

Against general gun ownership. To own a firearm, one should be required to have taken an intensive firearms safety course or have military/LEO equivalent, requalify in said course regularly (a reasonable period, e.g. every 5 years), be required to report weapons stolen or sold within a resonable amount of time of the change of ownership, and have mandatory waiting periods for all firearms save bolt-action hunting rifles.

[Scheetz]

Are you for or against it?

Against general gun ownership. To own a firearm, one should be required to have taken an intensive firearms safety course or have military/LEO equivalent, requalify in said course regularly (a reasonable period, e.g. every 5 years), be required to report weapons stolen or sold within a resonable amount of time of the change of ownership, and have mandatory waiting periods for all firearms save bolt-action hunting rifles.

LOL, I'll clear this up for ya. Mil spec/LEO training is nothing spectacular. Police requalify yearly and their hit percentage in shootouts is less than 20%. That is an actual fact, NY City released their hit percentage as well not to long ago. It was something like 23% hits. Thats 2 out of 10 rounds fired actually hit the target. Now moving on. A good portion of states you have to quality to have a gun permit in order to even buy a firearm. Next. Report weapons stolen, ummm that is already required by law. Weapons sold, some states require others dont. However, if you do not report the gun being sold in person to person sales you can be held liable if that weapon is found at a crime scene or connected to one. Mandatory waiting periods, yup yup, already have that one as well.

The 2nd Ammendment Reads and I quote: "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."

Repeat that to yourself, ohh lets say 100 times. Then come back and tell everyone that it just says militia.

[BrotherBuford]

That the 2nd is written with an operative clause and a justification clause confuses many today due to it being written under archaic rules of grammar. You must remember that the 2nd was written under the rules of English as they were in the late 18th century, and must be read and interpreted accordingly. To quote a different writer: It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

An in-depth analysis of the 2nd, with references and comparisons to other law texts of its time that use similar construction, by a UCLA Law School professor: The Commonplace Second Amendment

[BrotherBuford]

Against general gun ownership. To own a firearm, one should be required to have taken an intensive firearms safety course or have military/LEO equivalent, requalify in said course regularly (a reasonable period, e.g. every 5 years), be required to report weapons stolen or sold within a resonable amount of time of the change of ownership, and have mandatory waiting periods for all firearms save bolt-action hunting rifles.

Just to be devil's advocate here, but what makes bolt action rifles so much less dangerous that they wouldn't fall under the same guidelines? It was with a bolt action that Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy. Are they not imbued with the same evil like other firearms apparently are?

[ghostofdavid]

Blame the murderer, don't blame the tool.

Any form of gun control compromise means that the pro gun movement has lost.

I am not a hunter or a sportsman. I own a gun because the 2nd amendment guarantees that right. The problem with well-intending antigun people is that reason does not work against criminals or authoritarian governments.

You guys know what Ghandi said about firearms, right?

Edit: Because I am stupid and said the wrong thing. Edited November 28, 2007 by ghostofdavid

[TheScotsman]

Don't blame the murderer, blame the tool.

Any form of gun control compromise means that the pro gun movement has lost.

I am not a hunter or a sportsman. I own a gun because the 2nd amendment guarantees that right. The problem with well-intending antigun people is that reason does not work against criminals or authoritarian governments.

You guys know what Ghandi said about firearms, right?

In short it sounds like you are saying that making guns illegal will save as many people as making murder illegal.

[TheScotsman]

LOL, I'll clear this up for ya. Mil spec/LEO training is nothing spectacular. Police requalify yearly and their hit percentage in shootouts is less than 20%. That is an actual fact, NY City released their hit percentage as well not to long ago. It was something like 23% hits. Thats 2 out of 10 rounds fired actually hit the target..

This made me laugh. I have shot against MANY cops in PPC and IPSC matches... they nearly always suck beyond belief. One of my favorite IPSC match quotes came from a cop... about half way through the match... "Do I shoot the brown ones, or the white ones?"

Between 1991 and 2000 Miami PD fired more than 1300 rounds at people, less than 200 hit.
Everyone needs a hero, I guess, but calling cop training good at teaching firearms proficiency is silly.

This cop missed... Good thing for the dude!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6557223218176342861
This cop didn't
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5048997829330800735
No wonder the schools have a no gun policy... it keeps (most) cops from hurting themselves!
Let's take them for examples of fine marksmen, and safe firearms users!

[Hookah_Bob3]

I've read each thread in this post and I've not seen anything about the right for the people to protect themselves from other citizens. The only thing gun control does is GUARANTEE that criminals (who would get their weapons on the black market anyway) have an unarmed target. If you're a criminal and there's a good chance the person you're thinking of robbing also has a gun, it's far more a deterrent than being locked up in jail for a few months if they get caught.

Also, our forefathers wrote exactly what they meant. Some say that the "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" refers to the military, but that is not what is written and that is what YOU infer from the statement. The statement was written literally and WITH the comma separating the portion of sentence dealing with the militia and the portion with the People for a specific reason, to separate them. The people are not the militia, and it states that the People have the right to bear arms.

[BrotherBuford]

Well, technically the People ARE the "unorganized militia", but the militia is not the standing military forces. It was the Founders hope that there would be enough of the People with arms and familiarity with arms that a sufficient number would be a part of the "well-regulated militia". Restricting the right to keep and bear arms would be contrary to this purpose, but at the same time the wording of the Second doesn't limit this right for ONLY that purpose. It is a justification clause that gives a compelling reason but not the only reason - there are many examples of this form of construction in legal texts of the time.

There are actually several state constitutions that use the phrasing "for defense of themselves and the State", which sounds like a pretty rock-solid individual rights interpretation considering the 2nd was written in the same time period as many state constitutions and for the same reasons.