not to debate rights at all but i must point out that there are really two schools of thought on the whole gun ownership thing. you have the urbanite view that "guns protect us from criminals" and the rural "guns put meat in the freezer" view. the types of guns owned by either are rather specific, you wouldn't always see an urbanite carrying a shotgun, and handguns are somewhat useless to a hunter. not to say that you want see a handgun on my inlaws' gun rack. pistols are useful for putting down meat that doesn't die immediately, of course a second shot from the rifle works. maybe youre going fishing in the woods and need to keep the bears from eating you / stealing your catch and dont want to carry a heavy rifle in addition to your fishing gear. i cant understand why anyone in a city would want a shotgun or a scoped rifle, i guess shotguns can breach doors or work as a terror weapon, and a scoped rifle is good for assassinations. cant really come up with a leagal, non-law-enforcement reason to have them in the city. in that scenario you want a pistol of sorts, can be used in close quarters and are easily concealed. as for me, guns put nearly 100 pounds of meat in my freezer last year.
as for the second amendment, i cant see any reason why we need militias anymore. we cannot turn the government with hand guns and hunting rifles. unless we amend it to allow us to carry tanks and nukes. id love to have my own nuclear device. i could just set it off when im feeling depressed. that would be kinda cool. of course id have to get my parking space widened to park my abrams. perhaps we need to limit people to owning weapons that were available when the second amendment was amended. i can hunt with a long rifle. criminals will have to go back to knife fighting.
