I find the whole argument that the Second Amendment guarantees my right to "bear arms" to be utterly bogus and open to interpretation. The Second Amendment reads as follows:
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 purpose, as I read it, is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of the State (read: nation). Not that they have the right to keep and bear arms to go hunting, shoot drunks in their front yard or scare the guy next door into not shooting them first. Also, "well regulated" implies government controls over gun ownership.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure the NRA has dozens of lawyers on retainer whose sole purpose is to justify why personal ownership of anti-tank missles is absolutely essential. I mean, let's face it: if I'm ever attacked by a Samuel L Jackson character riding a laser-toting velociraptor, I'm pretty well screwed... but that neo-con neighbor of mine with an AK-47 has a fighting chance.
squidproquo: You are a murdering machine,
![G o o d [Good]](/emoticons/g_o_o_d.gif)
sir.
Gradius1:No more Jack threads.
Bring it!