Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Yeah, but it's unclear that the 2nd Amendment gives
Americans the right to bear arms. Maybe bear hugs,
but not arms.

The modern version:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The original version:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the difference? If it's not clear, check the following link. It's a
fairly well
balanced discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

An earlier form of the amendment included a third clause to the effect
that the amendment was to be qualified with respect to conscientious
objectors, so that the amendment wouldn't be interpreted by some of the
States as permitting the States to rely on the new amendment and require
conscientious objectors to serve in the various State militias. This
clause was deleted during subsequent discussions as being unnecessary.
However, it clearly reveals what the writers had in mind when the
drafted the clause: "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA being necessary to the
security of a free state...." - They were considering the right to bear
arms in the context of the rights of the States to maintain their
respective militias.

Thus, to simply ignore the first clause, i.e., "A well-regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free State....", or to throw it
away as just an unimportant side issue not relevant to the correct
interpretation of the meaning or purpose of the amendment, is, in the
context of the actual historical record re the drafting of the amendment
itself, clearly absurd!

Jim