Suzy Sock Puppet says: Second Amendment - it cannot be denied that there has been infringement. If you gave a right, you don't need a license or a permit . . .

It is possible to regulate the details of how to own a gun without infringing on the core right itself. In other words, we could say, "Yes, you have the right to own a gun. That won't be taken away. However, there are some hoops you have to jump through in order to exercise your right." The Constitution doesn't say we won't regulate the ownership of guns, or what type of guns our right to own a gun involves. It just says we get to have one. The fact that we feel comfortable telling people they can't have weapons of war means that we could put that line anywhere we want it to be.

It is also possible to say that "a well-regulated militia" trumps the concept of individual ownership. Perhaps if you want to own a gun you need to be in an official militia. Your gun would be stored at the armory until it was needed for practice or for national defense.

It is also possible to say that "the people" (as in all of us collectively) have the right to arm a militia, but that "persons" (as in an individual) don't have any rights at all in this regard. This would be consistent with the use of the words "the people" and "person" throughout the rest of the Constitution.

In fact, given what's actually writen in the Constitution, all of these interpretations of the 2nd Amendment make more sense than one that is currently in use.

It is also possible to say that my right to security is eroded by someone else's perceived right to carry a gun around with them. When two explicitly stated rights in the Constitution conflict, how do we decide which one gets put aside?