Dr Razark:
Thank you, and others, for all of your pertinent information on the historical perspective of the 2nd Amendment, particularly the part where it was essentially meant as a de facto army.
I actually agree with you on the historical perspective, I just think it's ridiculous to consider "any random moron with a gun" a "well-regulated militia." How can the highest US court in the land consider the founding clause for it's amendment "not essential"? I mean, I know why-because of people like Scalia and Thomas, who hang out with Cheney and Limbaugh.
Also, people who worship the Founding Fathers without considering that they were men (white, affluent, only men, at that) just make me angry. For people who say that, "Do you know anything about them besides what a majority of them agreed upon to put down in writing to frame a Constitution?" Thomas Jefferson, for example, considered African-Americans "naturally inferior" to Caucasian-Americans--but at least he admitted he "could be wrong" about that, unlike others of his time. He also rewrote the Bible, considering much of it to be "dross" with "gold" scattered within it.
...
Anyway, before this becomes any more of a dissertation:
While I would like to see things like assault rifles banned, I doubt anything like that will happen until we have a new generation of lawmakers and Supreme Court Jusitices-maybe people my age and younger (Generation Y), who grew up seeing these kinds of massacres on TV, will have the courage to stand up to the NRA.
And of course, hopefully the Affordable Care Act will be able to get these people mental health care-as it is, most of them only get in in jail or prison, which is currently, essentially, being used to warehouse them.
...Still, NOT A KEY CLAUSE? *cries*
