Jed, I understand that this is how you interpret the Second Amendment, and I will concede that you are not alone in your interpretation. I am not alone in mine, either. State constitutions are not what I was talking about (there are fifty of those, and I won't pretend to be familiar with all of them), but I do know that state constitutions do not necessarily track all that closely with either the US Constitution or the various interpretive rulings that have been issued by the Supreme Court. So I would propose that, for the sake of this discussion, we should stick to the US Constitution, as amended and interpreted through the years.

Since we have now drifted into this discussion, though, how would YOU apply the Second Amendment to other "arms"? The Second Amendment refers to arms generically (not just "sidearms"), which presumably means that any and all modern weaponry is covered -- including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. I don't ask this to be ridiculous, even though it may sound that way. But if "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in any way, then the US government has no right whatsoever to limit personal possession of these weapons -- which is a pretty scary thought, but perfectly consistent with the position you have taken. It also is what we would need if we were truly serious about resisting the power of an oppressive modern government, either our own or that of a foreign power. Maybe an 18th-century British army could only field muskets and cannon, but modern armies rely on highly mechanized and terrifically destructive armaments, which we would have to be able to match (in both destructive capability and numbers) if we were to put up serious resistance to the state.

Doug, you correctly note that a federal permit is required to own automatic weapons. In fact, the requirements one must satisfy to obtain such a permit are pretty restrictive. Has this "right" not already been "infringed"?

As for what the American public supports, I confess that I don't know for sure. But I do know that in political and public opinion polls, the answer you get often depends on how you ask the question. If you ask people "Do you support the repeal of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights?", most people will probably answer "Hell, NO!" If you ask "Do you think everyone should be allowed to walk down Main Street, and through the halls of public buildings (elementary schools, the White House, etc.), with any weapons they choose to carry, and with the police powerless to do anything about it?", you would probably also get an overwhelming "NO!" in response. Since, under your interpretation, those answers can't be reconciled, I would think you should be a little more cautious about claiming majority support for your position.

Again, this is not meant to be silly. But in life, most questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. And once you have accepted that the most reasonable interpretation allows for some restriction on the ownership of weapos by individuals, then most of this Second Amendment talk goes away and we're back to where we really should be -- discussing where a reasonable modern society should draw the line.

I look forward to your replies, gentlemen. -- WS