Finished my above post before I read this one. Quite thoughtful. Like most liberals on this board, you are a lot more reasonable than the run-of-the-mill liberal.

A few comments:

In those times, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have said what they did, only in language which would be, hopefully, a bit less convoluted. Something like "The right of the citizenry to own, keep and bear arms in the service of their country shall not be infringed."

Why anyone would think that you would need a Constitutional Amendment to allow an army to carry weapons is beyond me. ALL organized armies carry weapons, including those who serve dictators. Further proof in my opinion that the founders intended the arms to be in the hands of ordinary citizens, which is unusual enough in a tyrannical world to warrant a Constitutional Amendment.

The original intent of the Constitution seemingly was to not have a standing army, although a Navy was provided for. Reading through the entire document, one can see that the objective seems to have been to have citizens bring their own arms (at that time, the equivalent of military issue) to muster up as volunteers ("calling forth the militia.") And the states were to be in charge. In other words, no U.S. Army. Just a National Guard, and an informal one at that. And the guns belonged to the citizens--they weren't issued when they showed up and taken away when they went home.

From Section 8:

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;



Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

(take THAT, military budget!)

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;



Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



Now, I have guns. I've shot many, many guns of many, many types. I'm not anti-gun, and I don't care if you have one, two, three or a hundred.

Me, I don't have any. Personal choice. My need for defensive weapons--of that type--is not as strong as my concern for the kids in my house. Under certain circumstances, I would buy guns and put them in a locked safe against future need, but those circumstances have not arrived yet.

If there were a way to keep weapons out of the hands of people with impaired judgement, such as those who are nuts, have demonstrated poor impulse control, and/or under the influence of any alcohol or druges, I wouldn't mind opening it up.

There are plenty of gun laws already on the books to try and do this. No one wants guns in the hands of a nut. Or anything else, like a car, or pieces of steel pipe. Making sure that there are enough honest citizens with guns goes a long way to protecting us from the nuts.

I'm absolutely against fully automatic weapons, which are clearly offensive, not defensive. I would limit weapons this way. "No person shall own any weapon which would not require reloading to kill an entire kindergarten class including the teacher and teacher's aide."

If one is really concerned about eventual tyranny, one wants the best weapons one can get. In my opinion, (unlike some other right wingers) I don't think our nation has decayed that far yet, but an automatic weapon locked in a safe the basement might not be a bad idea, like in Switzerland. However, this is, like you say, not a "defensive" weapon unless an army is coming over the hill.

As a practical matter, for the type of defense that most citizens would be required to mount against criminals, housebreakers, nuts with guns, etc., a servicable handgun, preferably concealed, is more than adequate and much more useful. Wouldn't hurt for the teacher and teacher's aide to be packing some discreet heat in case that looney shows up...

Otherwise I might say something which meant "The right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms suitable for defending their homes from unwanted intruders shall not be infringed." I would leave it up to the experts to figure out how to exclude fully automatic weapons, grenades, and so on.

Very reasonable, although open to far too much interpretation.

My problem is threefold, I guess. One, offensive weapons, two, people with poor impulse control, and three, that some folks think there is a Constitutional right for the first two to get together.

Like I said in the other post, the assumption that everyone who would want a large gun is by definition a nutcase doesn't really hold up.

I think the best we can do under modern circumstances is muddle along like we have been, but keeping in mind the basic ideal of individual rights.

At present, I would like to see the options for concealed handguns opened up considerably in many states, and unlike some libertarians, have no solid objection to being required to license them, if the requirements are reasonable and not intrusive.