boy oh boy, it's another
gun control argument.
At the risk of rehashing my arguments in right to keep and bear arms, I will say my piece.
The Second Amendment, as it is worded, may or may not confer gun rights on individuals - that point is debatable. After all, on the one hand, it does state pretty clearly that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." On the other hand, there's that pesky bit about a militia in the beginning. The wording of the Second Amendment, however, is largely irrelevant. Why, you ask? Because there's about 200 years of common law piled on top of the actual Constitution. This common law is vastly important in determining the correct interpretation of the text. The gun control folks want a strict constructionist reading. Ok, fine. If the liberals would agree to a strictly constructionist reading of all Constitutional points, I'll gladly give up my individual right to keep and bear arms. But they won't. And so we must take the common law into account. And what that common law has been over the past 200 years is that individuals do indeed have the right to keep and bear arms.