Dave wrote:

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:24:53 -0500, Martin Baxter said:


In your opinion, does the Second Amendment extend the
right to own weapons to all citizens? If so why doesn't it (or perhaps
it does) extend the right to own 155mm Howitzers to drug dealers?


My opinion would ultimately rest on how persuasive I found the reasoning
advanced in the various opinions dealing with the issue, as well as other
scholarly work on the topic. Since I have not read, and don't intend to
read, the various Court of Appeals decisions on the issue, or the scholarly
works either, I simply don't have an opinion on the question.

As a matter of policy (a very different thing from Constitutional dictates),
while I'm persuaded that private citizens should not be permitted to own
atomic bombs or Howitzers, I think a good case can be made that private and
relatively unrestricted ownership rifles, shotguns and probably at least
some types of hand guns, should be permissible.

But of course this is coming from a city guy who grew up in a rural area and
owned his first gun at age 11.

Coming from an ex-marine, who was awarded a prize in basic training for
marksmanship, your distinction between: (1) hand guns, shotguns, and
rifles (permissible, and protected under the 2nd) and (2) Howitzers and
atomic bombs (not permissible or protectable) is absurd. If the
Amendment is read as written, the reason "the people" are given the
right to bear arms is that a well REGULATED militia is necessary to
preserve the security of the state. How are the people going to preserve
the security of the United States against its enemies today (in 2007,
not 1885) without weapons comparable to those our enemies posses TODAY
(in 2007, not 1885). Surely you don't think the amendment relates merely
to arms that can be carried by a militiaman. Or do you?

Jim

Jim