That was me as "Guest"; too busy to check grammar or my state of cookielessness.

I noticed several comments to my post, some reflected a common misunderstanding that both sides of the issues exploit to their own ends.

Much like drugs, neither side wants progress, the debate alone suffices for political attention; and continuing the debate is quite profitable. Yes! Like most third-rail issues, this one's mostly about money.

Whistlestop's "Hate to jump in . . . " post hits the mark deadon. The NRA would have no use for that position. And strange though it may seem, the otherside, which I call the "Bradybillers", won't be inviting the author of that to their rallies either.

For DougR, who posts . . . And Guest, if the issue is as clear and simple as you suggest, why is there so much argument about the subject of the right to bear arms?

Answer: arguing IS the game, this is mostly about politics, not guns.

. . . And what does any of this have to do with gun control?

Answer: The NRA uses the 2nd ammendment as a shield to fend off attacks from the bradybillers. When cornered, they maneuver gracefully by making points that would be appropriate had the ammendment never existed.

In other words, people like Ted owned weapons before the ammendment and were confident that governmental confiscation need not be a concern. Since nothing changed with respect to that the day it took affect, obviously the amendment protects gun ownership?

There's a flaw in that logic, but in speeches, mostly delivered to the pro-gun crowd, who's gonna complain?

Why do courts not enforce the ammendment as written? Simple: Courts respond to legal arguements, as presented. It's in neither side's interest to argue to that.

Shedding light on Madison's words, would not benefit either side. In fact, it's the bradybillers who've labeled "security of a free state" as "fascist".

Anyway, people's lives are being destroyed by this. And we can't even get past the insanity of "gun shows" (trading weapons and cash over a folding table under a tent inthe woods), instead of in a regular business on "Main Street", so we're pretty much screwed for the time being.

About the ammendment.

The language objected to in my post, Madison's words, are not "original" or "historic" or "quaint" and don't need changing! The number two item in the Bill-Of- Rights, "Supreme Law OF The Land", superseding state law. Although mos items in the bill of rights have been nibbled at over these past 200 years, no frontal attack against any has reached the credible stage.

Three quarters of the state legislatures are gonna bury one of Madison's Big 10, gimme a break! We will eventually win.

Someday gunowners will be proud to be members of a well regulated militia. Regulated by the community which they protect. And, then you'll know that your gun owning neighbor has had safey training, range training (to hit what he's aiming at?) and has not been involved in activity of a beligerent nature.

Terrible ideas currently opposed by both sides!