>>Also, if the argument is anywhere not based on the right to bear arms and it's inviolability due to the 2nd amendment, you're going to have to point me to that too. It seems, as far as I can tell, that the whole argument about the individuals' right to bear arms is based on the fact that the 2nd amendment says that such right 'shall not be infringed'. In fact, that idea about the right not being infringed appears all over the site.
>>
>
>The 2nd is obviously the cornerstone of gun rights in the US, but just as important is the thinking that went into the amendment. See http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm (thanks again to Tracy) for some of it.

I did read that when Tracy posted it, and I went back and read it again. As far as I can tell it is all really about the arming and maintenance of the Militia. Who has the right to keep a militia etc. I think though, that as far as the right to bear arms is concerned, the crux is right at the end before the references and bibliographies:

Could Congress ban hunting rifles? It would be politically impossible and constitutionally
absurd, although it would be possible and reasonable to ban hunting, and hunting rifles, in
national parks. May Congress regulate the ownership, sale, use, and interstate transportation of
firearms? Surely it can within the constitutional limits of general federal police and commerce
powers, just as the states or the national government (where it has regulatory or police power)
can regulate burial, marriage, or child custody. But, just as regulations of marriage or burial
must be reasonable,[194] so too would regulations of firearms.

The chief justice said fairly specifically that Congress has the right to regulate the ownership, sale, use and transportation of firearms. Think about that. The right to regulate ownership.

I have never argued that congress should be allowed to disperse the states' well regulated militias, and mostly the article is about who has control over various militias, and who should and should not supply them with arms, and why. But that same article that you want to refer to says clearly that congress has the right to say, "Sorry, you can't own a firearm."

That means (to me, anyway) that the 'right to bear arms' claimed by the NRA (and others) by reference to the 2nd amendment, is a misreading of that amendment.

>
>Somewhere at home I have a book on this, I will dig it up and get back to you.
>
>Personally, I think it would do a lot of people some good to get a little military training. Look at the Swiss; the whole nation is armed to the teeth, and they don't seem to have any issues with it.

I don't dispute that training (military, or just firearms training) is a good idea. In fact I think if someone wants to own a firearm, it should be mandatory. That's been part of my argument all along.

>
>>And Daniel, I know how sometimes things come across in a post in a way that seems more curt than intended, so I hope you understand that, while you and I do have a fundamental disagreement here, I honestly am interested in the discussion. I might seem sarcastic sometimes, but I think that's only because I am.
>
>No problemo. Long as we can keep it civil, I'm happy to discuss just about anything.

Hey, if there is one thing I try very hard to be at all times, it's civil; you *&!*&!@#. ;)