Thanks for your replies, Doug and Jed. But while both of you still seem to feel that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to own and carry sidearms, you also both seem to feel that it allows for restrictions on the ownership of other (more powerful) arms. Again, I can't follow your logic -- it seems to me that you just want to draw the line where it makes sense to YOU, but justify it by reference to the apparently limitless right to own arms that your interpretation of the Second Amendment confers. What would be your Constitutional argument against someone who feels that the line should be drawn in a different place -- one that allows for personal ownership of machine guns, nuclear bombs, and other more powerful weaponry?

Jed, when you say that you "don't see why [ownership of weapons of mass destruction] would be protected by the second amendment," you leave me confused. As I read it, either it does establish an unlimited right to own "arms" (of any type), or it does not. If you accept that the Second Amendment right to own arms IS limited, then we're back to discussing what sorts of limits are appropriate: limits on the type of weapons that are covered (sidearms yes, nerve gas no), or perhaps limits on the circumstances of "ownership". Since the Second Amendment does not in any way refer to types of weapons ("arms," with no qualifiers), but does refer to the circumstances and purposes for which those weapons are deemed necessary ("a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"), a reasonable person might conclude that the circumstances are the primary limiting factor envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Therefore, firearms might be collectively owned in a militia arsenal (equivalent to modern-day National Guard arsenals), but not individually owned by every Tom, Dick and Harry who decides he wants them.

It isn't enough to point to a Constitutional Amendment as your justification, unless you are prepared to examine the language of the amendment closely to discover its true meaning. The words are important; they wouldn't be in there if they didn't have any bearing on this. Also, Jed, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court HAS NOT interpreted the Second Amendment to confer an individual right to keep and bear arms outside of a militia context. They pretty much leave the question of restrictions on ownership of weapons up to the states, which exert varying levels of control over the keeping (and bearing) of arms. Are you aware of decisions in which the Supreme Court has overruled state restrictions on private gun ownership on Constitutional grounds?

And the thread drifts merrily along...