LRG-
I am really not trying to be the instigator here, (and I do live in the USA), but are you aware of the history of the 2nd Amendment and how it came into existence? Did you ever question the part concerning militias, inasmuch as they are illegal in the USA? There is a reason that language is there, and it has to do with the era in which the US constitution was written.
Post Revolutionary War, (or Revolt for you on the other side of the pond), much debate existed over how to defend the USA in times of peace. Generally, it was understood a Navy was necessary. We needed to guard our ports and waterways. It was not so clear what a standing army would do, however. Much fear existed that a standing army could cause mischief and harm if they had access to weapons, and others did not.
We never came around to eliminating a standing army. Meanwhile, instead, what happened was the Articles of Confederation were tried, and failed. As you are likely aware, the Articles gave states far greater latitude than our current constitution. Generally speaking, the southern states preferred this form of a federal government, mostly because they feared the social stigma that was growing in the northern states with respect to the still very legal slavery situation and would eventually make slave holding illegal, (obviously it did with Emancipation some 80 years later). In any event, the Articles failed, (remember, there was not even a common currency among the states then), and the more federally focused document was back on the table.
The southern states would still not ratify it. Basically what happened was they needed to be persuaded, (or pandered to), to do so. Gun ownership was regarded loosely as a "way to keep the government in check", at least in a "feel good" kind of way, (certainly nothing empirical to prove this), so although the standing army concern was never really addressed, the original language as written into the draft document, (militias and all), remained.
So there you have it. The Second Amendment was in fact a provision to appease states that would not ratify it without it, mostly over federal government paranoia, (sound familiar?). Advocates for the 2nd Amendment give all kinds of reasons for it, (self protection being the most common), but the argument does not hold water in light of history. It was an anti-government provision from the beginning.
Bottom line, is that unless people really are anti-federal government, (and we all know the kooks that are), the Second Amendment really has very little practical meaning in modern society.
Sorry, but these are facts, and I truly expect to get flamed over this...
d4g
