[Winstonm]

mike777, on Nov 26 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

I don't think any sane American is saying the right to bear arms is unlimited, just as the right of freedom of speech and expression is not unlimited.

As I said the main issue here seems to be is there an "Individual" right, outside of the whole militia issue, to bear arms just as there is an individual right to freedom of speech.

If there is such a right then I would think that government has very a limited ability to restrict that right such as  for public safety.

Of course that is a neverending debate what that may mean.

Mike,

You are exactly right in that the issue the SC will decide is whether or not gun ownership is the individual right or a group right - personally, I think the key phrase is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course, you also have to balance this with the forbiddance of a standing army, which has been neglected, to attempt to define meaning.

Seems to me that the thrust of writer's meaning of this amendment is that there was no standing army and thus individuals must have arms in order to form into a militia when needed.

Now, maybe times have changed, and we certainly have a standing army - but my contention is that if the amendment is obsolete it should be replaced; that is what constitutional law allows.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Nov 26 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

my contention is that if the amendment is obsolete it should be replaced; that is what constitutional law allows.

With that much, at least, I agree in principle - far better to eliminate the Second Amendment than to claim it's the law of the land and then ignore it.

Which is not to say that I believe people's rights are defined by law.