We (Americans) are "the people". And we Americans who belong to well-regulated militias are entitled to keep and bear arms so as to provide for the "security of a free state". And militias that don't keep tight control of their weapons could hardly be considered "well regulated".

At this stage I'm not expecting to convince anyone that my interpretation is right, but I do note that nobody has yet offered much of a response to the inconsistencies I have pointed out in others' intepretations:

(1) If the Second Amendment applies to some arms that had not yet been invented in the 18th century (such as a .45 caliber automatic pistol, invented in the late 19th century), why doesn't it apply to others (such as a nuclear bomb, invented in the 1940's)? Is this just based on what certain individuals (Jed, Doug) consider reasonable? Why should their interpretation of "reasonableness" carry any more weight than mine?

(2) If we get past that hurdle, and decide that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep arms to protect them from a future despotic American government (but nothing more sophisticated than semi-automatic personal sidearms), how do these folks think they will prevail once the battle is joined in earnest?

(3) Since these individuals with their sidearms are certain to be outgunned by the hypothetical future oppressive government, can we really say that this interpretation is consistent with the intention of the framers of the Constitution? To put it another way, do we really think that the framers (who had some familiarity with military matters, and certainly knew there would continue to be advances in the technology of war) wanted to set "the people" up for such a devastating defeat?

The bottom line for me (as I prepare once again to descend from my soap box) is that talk about Second Amendment rights is fine as long as it is abstract, and sidesteps the hard questions. Once the practical implications are made real, the weakness of the Second Amendment arguments of gun rights activists becomes obvious. I believe that legitimate arguments can be made on both sides of the gun control debate, but those arguments aren't based on a reading of the Second Amendment that focuses on the second clause while effectively ignoring the first.

So who should run against Bush? How about we make it interesting, have Colin Powell to resign (presumably after a power struggle with Rumsfeld/Cheney), and then he can run against Bush?