The Supreme Court has never ruled on a pure 2nd ammendment case. On Purpose. They are terrified of the 'shall not be infringed' clause. ALL gun laws are unconstitutional, and every supreme court justice knows it. That is why they studiously avoid a direct 2nd ammendment ruling, instead, choosing to rule on technicalities as in the Miller case. A man with a gun is a citizen. A man denied a gun is a subject. A law abiding man with a gun is a threat to noone, and if there is a man who knowingly cannot be trusted with a gun...why are they on the streets at all?

few in the media even know that bill-of rights day is almost upon us - i commend the star and moncure for highlighting the bill of rights and doing so in depth where others would rather write puff pieces about multicultural rock groups. -wp

Mr. Violinist1 states that the bill of rights was grugingly added to the constitution. Not so. The bill of rights was part of the discussion when drafting the constitution and the constitution would not have been signed if an agreement had not been reached to amend it to include the Bill of Rights. If by "grugingly" he means there was much discussion about it that is true, just as there was much discussion about the intire constitution. As to the type and capacity of the firearms, then as now think they would want the most advanced available. The electoral college is irelevant to the conversation about the second amendment

Okay, I am about to be jumped on by liberals and possibly conservatives now. I am a Libertarian, some would call me a Constitutionalist but they would be wrong. The second Amendment and all the other amendments are not GRANTED by the US Constitution. God gave us those rights and all rights not mentioned at our conception. What God gave us, no paper in the world or created by any man can take away. That said, here's where I make myself a target..... WMViolinist1 says that the weapons today are too powerful, so we shouldn't have them. Sorry, wrong! The weapons are no more powerful than any other gun around today or in history. I shoot a blackpowder rifle and handgun regularly for re-enactments and target shooting competitions, so I know. If we did not have guns equaling the power of any enemy it would harm our chances to survive. Additionally the muskets of the 1775s were single shot, but think! Daniel Boone was able to shoot the "eye off a fly at 200 yards" with a rifled musket. Considering that the Washington DC "Sniper" a few years ago was shooting at only 100 yards and missing half the time, with a semi-automatic rifle of much greater accuracy I would say that the two weapons were equal. The difference is Daniel Boone used his rifle daily and the "sniper" was a "wanna be". KNowing the rifle/handgun and practice makes a difference, one of the real reasons for everyone being required to own a military weapon in historical times, so they could use it in practice! BJones has it right. Under our Constitution every citizen should be able to own any kind of weapon. Personally I am not rich enough to afford buying permission to own a machinegun but I know if I were I would buy the permission. Wait you say! What does that mean!?!? I'll tell you. It is a little known fact that any American Citizen who does not have a criminal record can today legally buy, own, and practice with full automatic machine guns! A $200.00 license "tax" is assed per machine gun by the BATF after you go through a check. Then you buy the machine gun. Simple as that. Personally, I do not have the $200.00 to waste (and to me it is a waste, I prefer to hit what I aim at not "spray and pray"). Okay, I can afford it, I just don't want it. Remember, you can go out and buy military style weapons today. They same ones used in our military. The difference? None. Should we limit ourselves? Only if the INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO LIMIT HIMSELF OR HERSELF! That is what the Second Amendment says, that is what we should do. Today we are in a war, that was started by terrorists someyears before 9-11. The terrorists are assuredly in this country now, if by no other means then through our porous borders. They are planning to attack America again. WE ARE THE FIRST DEFENSE, WE GUN OWNING MALITIA ARE HERE TO DEFEND AMERICA. By the way, anyone who does not own a gun, cannot exercise their full responsibility for this country, you depend on us gun owners to do your part. You are not only wrong, but you don't accept anything but the benefits of citizenship. Also note that every time disarmanent has been tried severla things happen. Every tyrant in the world does four things immediately upon assuming power...first they register all guns, then they limit which type of guns are allowed (with all others turned in or stiff prison sentences), then they confiscate all guns, and then finally (when they know that the people are disarmed) they start killing innocent people. Now, I ask you, does America mean anything to you? Does your family's safety mean anything to you? If those things matter, buy a gun, get trained in it's use. That is why we are free. Every single law and amendment is protected by the Second Amendment.

First, in the period when the Amenments were considered, militia were NOT the Army. We had a very small standing army which was used against a couple of rebellious groups shortly afterward. Gen. (not yet President) Washington commanded it. The tiny Army was to be supplemented with militia as needed, a concept that was used without much success until the War of Northern Aggression. Parenthetically, Washington obviously supported the idea of a professional, standing Army, partly because of his experiences with militia both before and during the Revolution. In addition, the opposition to the Bill of Rights was primarily based on th epossibility that future generations might consider the naming of certain rights as a denial of others. Support for Mr. Moncur's view of the Second Amendment was essentially universal, as can be seen in the actions of our state and federal governments: When explorers were sent out, and later when trappers went into the area of the Louisiana Purchase, they were encouraged to take along cannon, the most deadly weapons of the day. Cannons today are far more powerful, but they were then roughly comparable to modern crew-served machine guns. It had long been my contention that every citizen should have the right to "keep and bear" whatever armament he chooses, including full auto weapons and aircraft carriers, if he can pay for them. Perhaps Ross Perot might be persuaded to purchase an aircraft carrier full of F-16's (or 18's) and allow ordinanry citizens to man it and them, with proper training, of course. Experience has shown that societies which are well-armed (like Switzerland, where every male keeps a full-auto rifle at home, with ammunition) are far safer than those where safety is dependent on physical size and toughness. The old saying in the West was that it was Col. Colt who made us all equal, and it has substantial merit. Look at the mess in Washington, DC, England, and Australia (where all honest folks are without guns) and you see a crime rate far higher than in more enlightened areas. The more broadly gun ownership is spread across the population, the safer that population is from predation by criminals of all types, including government officials who imitate Hitker or Lenin or Mao. Gun accidents are rare and getting more so every day, while gun ownership soars in the USA. If there were time and space here, I would discuss US v. Miller at more length, but let me say only that Mr. "Miller" was believed to be a member of the Capone mob and almost certainly deceased prior to the Supreme Court addressing the case, and the Supremes' tolerance for the Gun Control Act of 1934 was based on thecidea that sawed-off shotguns had no military use. This was obviously false back then and remains so. The WInchester model 1897 was widely used in WWI and WWII, and more modern shotguns were used in Vietnam and are probably in use in Iraq today, usually with a shortened barrel.