WS - well reasoned arguements, and points-of-view. I only mentioned the state constitutions because they so closely follow the Federal, but I agree they don't fit this discussion.

I agree also that there are differing opinions on the meaning of the ammendment. Most Americans believe the ammendment protects their personal right to bear arms, and that in deed has been the result. We have a long history of personal firearm ownership in America. If we have a supreme court that reads it differently in the future, it will be a signifcant departure from the past. I don't think it will happen. It is possible further restrictions on gun ownership anduse could be established with new interpretations from a different court - but I don't see a wholesale turn around happening on the interpretation of this ammendment. I also think this is the tactic of the left; to continue to chip away at firearm rights, and make them harder to own and use - to reduce, and effectively eliminate them.

I don't have a problem with US and state governments restricting the possession and use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. I don't see why they would be protected by the second ammendment - but it is possible someone would push the issue to the supreme court for ruling.