Note: I have taken the liberty of setting your rejoinder apart from the body of the other quotes (easier to read) and underlined and embolding the most important points.Wally:You are a Prince among men and a linear thinker!

Columbine ... ?

What about Columbine--all guns were legal and in working order--only the kids had defective parts.  Gunsdo not kill people--people do.  Mine sit on the shelf--inert as argon gas until I enter the equation--right?

I think you are reading it incorrectly.  I grew up in upstate New York in a blue collar neighborhood where almost all the Dads hunted and had guns in the house.  They also voted for Democrats as they were usually the sons or grandsons of immigrants and saw that party (read FDR) as being theirs circa 1955.  The guns were never a problem except for pistols which New York had pretty much locked down carry permits at thattime.  In all the time I sat with these fathers or cleaned guns or tossed dogs into cars, I never rememberany conversation wherein guns were discussed as anything else than tools to kill animals and run off peoplewho ought not to have been in the neighborhood,  These guys did not screech about government as manyhad spent several years defending it.  There was never any discussion of the 2nd amendment!  Perhaps thesesteel workers, chemical mixers and factory hands did not even know it existed.  I do sincerely believe thatthey thought owning a gun was normal, reasonable and a right.  I was upset because my Dad had not foughtin the war, did not hunt and did not own nor want to own a gun; he saw no need.

I would tend to agree that it wasn't intended as a duty but certainly a reminder to both the people and the government it was one of those natural rights. The point that the folks in upstae NY didn't discuss the 2nd Amendment is telling (while divergent) because it wasn't discussed much anywhere until the concept was called to question after JFK was killed; the relative ease and low cost to purchase the murder weapon shocked many people. The knee-jerk reaction was the Gun Control Act of 1968 and other similar later day regs.Willy, I've always slipped that thing about well regulated in since reading somewhere that the term was used (some) in that manner in those times... can't cite source so discount it if you will. I do usually include that it is iffy too  ;).

YES--no need to discuss it at all--I think that is the key.  Unhappily they are all dead so checking is impossible.2nd Amendment--poor syntax/convoluted sentence structure=confusion.  Google--  George Orwell on Languageand be happy--perhaps you already know of it.

What does the 2nd Amendment really mean?  The text is quite simple:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.-- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That seems pretty straightforward to me.  It seems to say that I have the right to own a gun.   It has no qualifications about whether I am a felon or mentally unstable it simply says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.I guess we could argue all day about what constitutes a well regulated militia, that phrase apparently keeps plenty of lawyers busy and other people with their knickers in a twist.  But the last part pretty much spells it out for me.  It does not reference a militia it simply says the people.  Last time I checked every citizen was one of the ?people? and so can own a gun.Notice I am not going into what type of guns we can own.  I don?t care, given that I have guns of my own anyone that shoots at me better be a good shot because I will exercise my rights to use my arms to uphold the security of a free State as stated in the text and return fire.I am more and more convinced that anti-gun types are really after control and people like me that own guns hinder their ambitions to have full control because we represent a threat in being should they get too much control and become tyrants.  I shed crocodile tears for them.The founders were some pretty slick guys and knew exactly what they were writing.  They have come right out and said that we can own guns.  They seem to imply that it is the duty of a good citizen to own one.  Or am I reading it wrong?I think you are reading it incorrectly.  I grew up in upstate New York in a blue collar neighborhood where almost all the Dads hunted and had guns in the house.  They also voted for Democrats as they were usually the sons or grandsons of immigrants and saw that party (read FDR) as being theirs circa 1955.  The gunswere never a problem except for pistols which New York had pretty much locked down carry permits at thattime.  In all the time I sat with these fathers or cleaned guns or tossed dogs into cars, I never rememberany conversation wherein guns were discussed as anything else than tools to kill animals and run off peoplewho ought not to have been in the neighborhood,  These guys did not screech about government as manyhad spent several years defending it.  There was never any discussion of the 2nd amendment!  Perhaps thesesteel workers, chemical mixers and factory hands did not even know it existed.  I do sincerely believe thatthey thought owning a gun was normal, reasonable and a right.  I was upset because my Dad had not foughtin the war, did not hunt and did not own nor want to own a gun; he saw no need.

....The founders were some pretty slick guys and knew exactly what they were writing.  They have come right out and said that we can own guns.  They seem to imply that it is the duty of a good citizen to own one.  Or am I reading it wrong?

My favorite Jefferson quote is about how to interpret the Constitution... he writes that one must consider the time and events when it was written... that consideration leads me to this view of the principles behind the 2nd Amendment:We had just fininshed getting our freedom from a government that:a) tried to limit our ability to defend ourselves,b) used "our" army against the citizens,additionally,c) Militia, at the time, was defined as the "citizens" (by standards of the time),d) a Militia that was well regulated often meant "well armed" in those days,e) it was in the best interest of the States to have protection...             (both from the Native population and, potentially, the government)f) the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or Locke's property)             will be assured (and insured) by the God given right to bear armsAs I've posted in other threads, it is my belief that the Bill of Rights is a sign post to remind us what the AmRev was about and why we need to be ever watchful and protective of our rights.Scout, your comment about being a good citizen is the key issue on the issue of "qualifications"... the limitation of this right to a person that breaks the law or is deemed a threat to the larger community seems the only logical limit on that right. The people cannot be restricted because of an individual but that individual could be restricted. JMHO. I'm the NRA --and I vote.

Disagree with D.  I see no reason to accept your definition of "well regulated".  It seems more reasonable tobelieve that the meaning refers to discipline, training and regimentation under the control of the variousstates rather than just well equipped.