awww..piffle, bruce! The part of the Bill of Rights that deals with guns has LONG been debated and interpreted differently. This search gets 33,000 hits...you can read every position imaginable. You know what it says .."A well-regulated militia..." etc... What has guys swaggering around with Berettas on their hips got to do with a well-regulated militia? If we need citizens to enhance a militia at some point, training and weapons can be provided. This is about people wanting to have a gun on them no matter where they are, whether in service to country or not! Are we really to hold to the interpretation that makes it easiest to kill one another?

As to other parts you mention, I could begin a LONG discussion about who might be wanting to restrict "Freedom of Religion" or "Freedom of Speech"... but those are different KINDS of freedom than "keeping and bearing arms". One is largely a matter of practicality, while others speak to basic moral precepts....and it does not follow that rethinking one will ruin the others!. I simply do not subscribe to the domino theory of causality..*wry grin*....neither do I assume that the Bill of Rights, as excellent as it is, is somehow "holy", and perfect as handed down. It is a guide, and a good one, and should not be messed with lightly, as it is part of the foundation of this amazing experiment in Democracy....but 250 years DO alter circumstances, and had that document been written today, I will bet that circumstances would affect the wording and flavor. The Founding Fathers were good, not omnicient!

(well, Mick...my logic, even if you consider it flawed, is right out there in moderate detail...to be picked apart by anyone who cares to. Amazing how reasonable people can look directly at the same facts and see totally different conclusions, hmmm?)