Interpreting the 2nd Amendment

Responsible adults should have the right to own and keep firearms; just as they should have the right to operate an automobile and consume alchohol: within certain limits and regulations which are designed to protect the individual and the community.

Interpreting the 2nd Amendment as an unequivocal and unrestricted right -- even obligation, as some would have us believe --of every person, to own any and as many firearms as they choose, is a stretch at best. Doing so may be good for the gun industry, but it is not good for the security of the State. More children die in this country from gunshot wounds than any other cause with the exception of automobile accidents and cancer.

What right is given by the 2nd amendment is clearly and specifically given for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia in order to preserve the security of the State. It does not reference or address the personal interests of any individual, including any perceived need for personal protection. As such, the owning of fire arms for personal reasons is not and should not be proscribed but to argue that any attempt to regulate the sale and owner ship of firearms violates the 2nd Amendment is silly and demogogery.

• If anything, the 2nd amendment specifically introduces the concept of regulation ("A well regulated Militia...") to the pretext for keeping and bearing arms.
• To attempt to argue that the the right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is unrelated to the establishment and maintenance of a well regulated Militia is nonsense. The two are not separable. They form a single sentence and express a single idea. To argue otherwise would be to argue that the statement, "A good sex life being necessary to the health of a successful marriage, spouses shall not be prohibited from having sex." advocates unrestricted sexual license for any married person.