Now Im no expert on the US Constitution lol, but Ive always found the phrase a bit vague. To understand the exact meaning you need to see a transcript of how it has been inserted and for the life of me, seeing a digital copy of your Constitution is not easy. Perhaps it was deliberately vague given the time. Do the words "This Constitution guarantees ..... preceed the amendment? Something has to, why is it never cited. It might be "With regard to the threat of invasion or attack, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms etc.
My one thought to add is that the Constitution (as like the Bible) needs to be vague in order to withstand hundreds and thousands of years of social growth. If anyone was to micro manage and DATE material to a given time period, then eventually the document would simple outdate it self.
The US Forefathers were well aware of that and chose to simplify the meanings rather than nitpick details that would constatly be judged.
Of course THAT can be a double edged sword too - imagine "todays" interpretation and that a hundred years from now when the average home owner will by a laser gun that vaporises the assailant. Seems implausable now, but imagine eliminating an intruder and erasing all signs of his existance in a single shot. Such a weapon may not be leagal in all states, but that has NEVER stopped gun owners from buying stuff off the street and never will.
Sure... protecting oneself is typically the main reason people argue the 2nd amendment, but I still will never understand the NRA's stance on anything up to rocket launchers, flame throwers, heat seeking missles and IEDs (maybe stretching a few of those) but the National Rifle Association sure is as over-the-top as PITA, MAMBLA, GREEN-PEACE, ACLU and other organizations that bring in millions of dolloars and dues a year - I often wonder where their loyalities lie.
All I know is IF I were to break into someone's home, I deserve to get blown away. I think if I tresspass that zealist gun owners taking aim at my head is over doing it.
ABOUT THE REPLY THAT IF TEACHERS HAD WEAPONS AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO PREVENT STUDENTS SHOOTING UP SCHOOLS. I just don"t live where i have ever seen the need for a locked teachers desk with a loaded pistol< just anticipating a nutjob to slaughter the classmates. I know any crime can happen anywhere, the news always has to have some sap on TV saying, "That sort of thing NEVER happens in this neighborhood!" well guess what, it does - all the time somewhere.
I can see a weapons stash in the principal's office for that horrid day that all hell breaks loose, but having selective or all teachers bearing guns is just waiting for a teacher to go nuts and start shooting.
Locally, at grade school and highschool level (as I'm sure in college) there are metal detectors and police officers assigned to schools - not because of anything happening here, but the major stories that we all know about. Again, the terrorists win, even if they are a couple of metal-head outcasts from a local highschool.
Whenever a fire cracker goes off in this country in a crowded area, especially major cities - every Homeland Security Force, local police and other goverment agencies come piling out of their hiding spots where 1 day out of a decade they actually do something. Meanwhile, we spend billions keeping our infrastructure safe from unknown threats that may not exist - again, the terrorists win.
Better safe than sorry is a basic no brainer, but at what cost. Between the wars of the last 7 years and the cost of HLS money, we have dug such a hole that we don't have to wire-transfer money to China (our major backer of our debt) we simply need to toss the check down the hole and it will arrive to them eventually - that is how big the hole we have dug is.
I fear the day (and it is coming) when the dollar is no longer the base of a barrel of crude oil, switching to the Euro - on that day, look for China to say they want some or much of their money back - and the printing presses (which go 24/7/365 now) just to pay for the mortgage buyouts will overheat and burst into flames.
The term Borrowing against your Debt always fascinated me, to think the scummiest coworker who earns what I do, buys drugs and endless booze and never has a penny to his name theoretically has greater worth that I do because his debt has value floors me. Banking is a den of shysters (sic?) and any old way to toss a note around works, whether it is worth the paper it is printed on or not, just doesn't matter any more.
One last thought - I heard where a man wanted to get rid of his CLUNKER and take advantage of the cash for clunker bailout - a porkbellied add-on to the car manfacturer multi-billion dollar deal (although I know clunker money is aimed for dealers, not manufacturers) but let's face it, where do the dealers get their cars from - ugh. Anyway, this fellow called and was promptly told he didn't qulalify because his car didn't run at all - he literally got NO miles per Gallon, so he was exempt - so he spent $500 to get it running enough to get to the dealer finally and got his $4500 incentive. God Bless America - if a car that doesn't run at all isn't a clunker, than I don't know what is.