[sarcasm]well, obviously we should ban cars/bikes/trucks (motor vehicle), home cleaning detergents (accidental poisoning), swimming, running, fireplaces, segway (other land transportation?), natural disasters, boats (other transport), and machinery of all kinds.

Bicycles (pedal cyclist on chart), sharp objects, and exercising cause much more non fatal hospitalizations, but since they do cause fewer deaths we should still allow those. (since guns are the obvious cutoff point)[/sarcasm]

The Second Ammedment also talks of a "well regulated militiaa" which will be the basis of the defence of the nation. Individuals armed without orgaization will not help.

No insult was intended by the use of the term. I avoid giving deliberate offence to anyone. I fyou found the term offensive let me say categorically that my intention was not to wound or offend.

We are not saying that only violently insane should be prevented from having guns. I think it is time for the judiciary to settle this rather contentious matter stemming from the expansive interpretation of the IInd Ammendment.

I do not agree with you when you say that there is nothing "wrong with guns". While there is the right of self defence, no one has the right to use guns for the purpose of assertion of an identity.

The state is the only framework withion which social defence can legitimately take palce. That is the conteract between society and the state.

Who says who's interpretation of the Second Amendment is 'expansive'?

We have a contract between the people and the state - it's called the Constitution.  Who in hell is using guns 'for the purpose of assertion of an identity'?

You can't even get your premises right.

If you read what I have said, you will find that I ahve clearly distinguished between the the different propositions. The first sttament was in the context of the right of self defence, the second was in thencontesxt of "gun culture". So I have not mixed up the two.

There is the whole issue of a well regulated militia and the avoidance of the well regulated part of the ammendment is the "expansive" part.

Again - That may be what you INTENDED to say, but that is not what you said.

Your article was based on the premise, summarized with this statement, that people just are not grown up enough to make their own decisions.  Which is totally liberal (progressive) and only accurate in a pre-school day care.

And your INTENDED statement is still wrong.  You missed the boat, the barn and the ship!  The problem is not capacity for background (your first erroneous argument), nor lax implementation.  It is the inability, or wall of separation, that is part of the right to privacy, that keeps law enforcement from knowing about looney tunes.

And it is not lax enforcement of the prohibition on loonies owning guns, but on the incompetence of law enforcement professionals like Dupnik to do their job.  If he had arrested him even ONCE and sent him for a loonie evaluation, the tragedy in Tucson would probably have been averted.  Instead of doing his job, he spews blood libel on innocent people,. seeking to repeat the lie enough to get people to believe it.

Again, the talk about the militia is a "pre-amble" that you do not seem capable of grasping.

Well put!

And those people who are not violently insane that shouldn't own guns... those are? political dissidents? jews? gays? blacks? women? conservatives? liberals? christians? arabs? muslims? asians? latinos? law abiding citizens?

Also there has never been an "expansive interpretation of the 2nd amendment"... The second amendment lets you own guns, period. In fact, it has been butchered, ignored, and circumvented all over the USA.

That isn't what the constitution says... nor what common sense says.

Individuals should be able to protect themselves from the state to prevent ethnic clensings.

Individuals should be able to protect themselves against a mugger or a rapist.

Would you honestly say that a woman doesn't deserve the right to protect herself from a rapist? That it would be too fair a fight if she had a gun, so she must be disarmed (the rapist, being a criminal, is still likely to be armed) so that she stands no chance at all of defending herself?

Individuals should be able to protect their country in the case of invasion.

Time and time and time again history has proven that individuals performing guerrilla warfare win wars. From the American Revolution, to Japan never invading US soil in WW2, to Germany never invading Switzerland... it is even more effective against weak willed democracies, as it got the USA to leave Vietnam and Iraq.

on what basis? guns save lives, promote freedom and equality, protect against tyranny.

What the heck does assertion of an identity even means?

Is shooting a rapist or a murderer that breaks into your home with ill intent an "assertion of an identity"? How about shooting a mountain lion that grabbed your kids and is going to eat them (I am referring to real occurrences)?

If I again may make myself heard.

Looking in from the outside, not being an American, the 2nd amendment looks to me, with its mention of the reason given as a militia, specifically to ALLOW all weapons typically required for a militia (i.e. sticks and hand guns) while not specifically stopping government from outlawing or severely controlling all other types of weapons (i.e. tanks and fighter aircraft).

To me it appears obvious that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to own hand guns but does not guarantee a right to own tanks or nuclear missiles.

If some other law (for example one about radiation) prohibits a type of weapon, the 2nd amendment does not invalidate the law unless the law is about militia weapons (i.e. hand guns).

To me, that makes sense.

There was already a standing federal army at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.  I think it was as much a measure to ensure the ability of the States to protect themselves from the Federal Government as anything.  In that sense, it might cover owning tanks and nukes.

I think it is reasonable to assume that it doesn't. Government certainly has the legitimate power to outlaw dangerous items, except in as much as the Bill of Rights limits government's power to do so. Weapons needed for a militia are allowed. That's what the 2nd amendment says.

Not quite.  It says that since a militia is needed, owing a gun is a right.  It did not say that only guns used for militias are a right.

I didn't say "used for", I said "needed for".

Sorry for my mistake.  However it does not change the meaning by swapping the terms (indeed, they are used interchangeably in the arguments here).   The amendment states "is a right".  It is clear.  The clause about the militia is not a condition.