In my view the right to own a gun is simply that, a right. Just as I have the right to have an opinion, say stupid things, and act foolishly now and then. A right is only a part of the covenant that is implied by the constitution.

I believe that altho' not stated, implicit with the right is the responsibility to use it with care and respect. To respect the laws of the area in which you live, to store it safely, and to know how to use it. Along the lines of even tho' you have the right of free speech you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

The guns I own are interesting old weapons. I have a side by side double 12 made in Batavia, NY. A Stevens Model 12, a 45-70 Trapdoor Springfield model 1884, a .36 Caliber Schutzen target rifle, and a .45 caliber black powder derringer replica. As you can see none are assault weapons with the exception of the Philadelphia derringer which is a replica of the Lincoln assassination weapon.

I don't care for the NRA but Wayne La Pierre is in favor of background checks and shooter safety programs before a gun leaves a store. So do I. That doesn't mean I support Wayne La Pierre. Each state has their set of gun ownership laws which is totally brainless. There should be one law that covers universally. Virginia's idiotic gun laws would have to go. New York's laws are plenty strict and would make a good model. The problem is state sovereignty and state's rights. An example of the messiness of the constitution.

The second amendment to me is inviolate, just as are the other parts of the bill of rights. However the founders, (Jefferson,Adams, Madison, Hamilton,...) gave the people the power to amend the rest of the constitution. I would tell Little Hawk that this is were the constitution is a living document. And the Bill of Rights is a foundation that must remain as originally written.

There is one area of constitutional debate that I think needs to be explored for more importantly than the rights of gun ownership. (That debate is too tied to emotion and personal opinion as this forum shows.) I think that understanding the original meaning of the language and punctuation used in the constitution is the central issue of all constitutional debate. The mutability of the language causes misunderstanding of meanings. (try and define and explain the enumeration clause, this has caused endless debate in constitutional law classes for years) The statement reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
( Which rights? Enumerated how?)

The Commerce Clause seems to be the measure for the Health Care Act.
The government hasn't the right to force anybody to buy anything.

An even bigger constitutional issue; I'd like to see a copy of Obama's birth certificate. To my knowledge it has never been seen and it should fall under the freedom of information act. If he won the election fair and square that's fine. But if he can be recalled there is hell to pay. It is arguable that if he wasn't native born and there by not an eligible candidate then any bill he signs may be unconstitutional and have to be passed again or voided. The same with any decision he made, like nominating Joe Biden as his running mate, right on down the line...

Gun ownership and second amendment rights are a small part of a bigger debate.

And Jack, I don't know Taconicus, he just started the ball, and I don't snipe.

Don