JB:

Again, only under very specific conditions (and a proper reading of the Second Amendment indicates one of those conditions would be the ability to travel backwards thru time!)

The 'comic-book' versions of the Constitution, perhaps.

I think it's time to re-write the entire constitution for a 21st-century society, eliminating ambiguities, particularly  in the first and second amendments.

For instance, people have apparently gotten the meaning of the word 'respecting' wrong in the first amendment clause, clause 'Congress shall make no law 'respecting' an establishment of religion'. It seems to give certain people the idea that 'Congress shall not respect religion'. Likewise, people have 'selectively' ignored the clause that would not 'prohibit...the free exercise thereof.'

The second amendment, however, clearly provides for gun-ownership as necessary for a 'well-regulated militia'...which is commonly understood by 'modern' interpretations of the law,  to mean 'armed forces', as well as police and other law-enforcement. And the very next sentence allows 'the people'(not ONLY those who belong to militia groups, the armed forces, or police) 'the right to keep and bear arms'. So your argument that it doesn't say this anywhere, is a load of something that begins with the same first letters as 'buck shot'.

Rewriting the amendment to specifically say 'law enforcement, military, and private citizens, would eliminate the centuries-old ambiguity in the language of too much of the Constitution.

This country has spent 200 years working its way backward thru the Second Amendment. Isn't it time you started reading the whole thing, not just the parts you like?

JB, I think you're guilty of such 'selective reading' yourself.

"Michael what perspective of Australia are you talking about?"

Um...I believe, I told you, Brett.  In addition to the historic, I'd also add the broader ideas of population, population density, and socio-economic factors.  You seem to draw a ready comparison between Australia and the US based on little more than the notion that both nations are comprised of people.  Oh, I've only visited Australia once, for three days, on a jaunt over from Indonesia.  How're the attempts at banning possession of collectible swords going down there, anyway?

"I am truly confused about what you are trying to communicate here."

Joe, let's not beat it to death.  If you didn't take offense at something I may have mischaracterized, great!

So has anyone here actually had their opinions changed on the issue of guns
during the course of this thread?

Of course not. If the dead kids don't do it, you're out of reach.

IMP.

Perhaps I should re-post one tidbit of my earlier, longer post.

The Second Amendment was not adopted with individual rights in mind, and establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in maintaining a state militia.

This is not an opinion. This is fact and this is the law.

JB is not misreading anything in any way.

I think Michael ended at least part of this argument!

JB: Remind me not to get into this debate with you. Your
Earth 2 use of English is too confusing.

All I said was, your argument that 'the right to bear arms' does not appear in the Constitution was incorrect. The problem here appears to have more to do with your use of 'Bizarro World' logic, rather than my 'Earth 2' use of English. And anyway, it looks really tacky using comic book terminology like that  in discussions like this.

For instance, people have apparently gotten the
meaning of the word 'respecting' wrong in the first
amendment clause, clause 'Congress shall make
no law 'respecting' an establishment of religion'. It
seems to give certain people the idea that 'Congress
shall not respect religion'. Likewise, people have
'selectively' ignored the clause that would not
'prohibit...the free exercise thereof.'

****

Is this on Earth 2? 'Cause what you're describing is
nowhere to be found in the Government of the United
States on this planet.

I agree that it's nowhere to be found in the United States Government, but there are far too many people (particularly on this board) who have too many problems with people who would simply like to practice the religion of their choice, without being ridiculed.