So she wakes up her husband, saying she thinks there are intruders in the house. Then she proceeds to shoot her husband six times, 5 of them in the stomach?

And there's no mention of the husband holding the gun?

So she shoots 6 times at an unidentified figure without seeing a weapon, without being threatened, without, in fact, seeing anything?

Even if this had been a thief, she might very well find herself on the hook for manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter, if the husband survives).

Well, it sounded to me like a possible murder attempt, too, but it would seem to be a bit much to shoot 6 times and think anyone would buy that it was an accident.

It seemed strange to me the way they mentioned the fires she (the wife) had experienced. Not to mind read too much, but it seemed to me like a reporter trying to intimate a history of erratic behaviour (or mental illness), but being restrained by editorial caution.

I mean, they can't say that she's a madwoman who has caused housefires in the past and probably shot her husband in a fit of hysteria without a lot of proof. But it seems to me that they'd like to suggest such a scenario.

But I'm afraid I might be overreading this. I'm just so familiar with reading about or hearing about these types of scenarios that so many things seem "off" here.

Are you SURE there is no evidence?

+++

There is certainly evidence that the government can call up the militia, and it's actions directed by the President when it is. But is that evidence that the government can restrict the rights of gun ownership except is service to the government? I don't think so.

The Bill of Rights were further safeguards against the power that government could wield over the people. It seems oddly against the spirit of it that they would throw in a restriction on the people. It is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Nine Rights and One Restriction. 

Even if you argue that the sole reason that the Founders wanted people armed, was to use them in service to the government when the militia was called up (which again seems against the spirit of everything they were doing), they unfortunately designated that the right resided with the people, and declared it could not be infringed upon. 

To a citizen in 1789 through the early 1800s it was clear that the right to bear arms and the existence of militia was a right conferred to the citizens of the states AGAINST the Federal Government! Indeed, there is a reason why the creation of a standing federal army is limited to two years! Jefferson himself believed in armed insurrection as a means of preserving liberty -- hence the right of the people to bear arms against their government

By 2010, rational people do not fear their government in such a fashion -- which is why I think the second amendment should be repealed as its inconsistent with the reality of our times; short of that we should interpret it in a manner which makes sense for our times. And by that we must consider what, in 2010, is a comparable to a militia.

+++

Geoff, I believe this is a far more compelling argument. I too believe that the Founders biggest concern was that citizens be armed to defend themselves against a despotic government, not in service to that government (as JB and others have stated). But with the knowledge that the expansion of the country lay to the west, a wild frontier populated with people who might not be so agreeable to us, it's hard to imagine that the Founders did not think that the people had the right to defend one's self, family and property.

I agree, times have changed though, and that certainly is an argument for amending the Second Amendment, but not (in my eyes), changing it's meaning as currently stated.

The first ten, which have come to be known as the Bill of Rights, were added all in one day, but I wonder what took so long? Could it be that the Founders did not hold these ideals to be quite so sacred and implicit as we think they did? Or did they see them, based on the lessons of history, as elastic concepts, that would and did alter with time, and not, therefore, something that needed to be spelled out?

If the latter, what a great pity these things were not left unstated. We might have a much more rational country today.

It is precisely that which informs much of the thinking on this issue. The "right" to bear arms is viewed thru the distorted lens of one's own immortality. Witness how many spring forth to defend this "right" on the presumption it is they, not some putative intruder, who will be wielding the guns, and it is they who will therefore emerge victorious.

==

The number of children and teens in America killed by guns in 2006 would fill more than 127 public school classrooms of 25 students each.

More preschoolers (63) were killed by firearms than law enforcement officers (48) killed in the line of duty.

Black males ages 15 to 19 are almost five times as likely as their White peers and more than twice as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed by firearms.

Between 1979 and 2006, the yearly number of firearm deaths of White children and teens decreased by about 40 percent, but deaths of Black children and teens increased by 55 percent.

Since 1979, gun violence has ended the lives of 107,603 children and teens in America.

Sixty percent of them were White; 37 percent were Black.

The number of Black children and teens killed by gunfire since 1979 (39,957) is more than 10 times the number of Black citizens of all ages lynched throughout American history (3,437).

==

Viewed in this light, perhaps the real reason some people want to keep guns so free and easy to obtain is to whittle down the Black population. When Blacks number about 10% of the population, but almost four times that many Black kids are being killed by guns -- well, the KKK must be thrilled beyond measure.

Anyway, the question remains the same. In the past 30 years 100,000 kids have been killed paying for the "right to bear arms". When does that price become too high? 200,000? 500,000? 1,000,000?