To appease all the liberals, the exact text of the 2nd Amendment reads as follows:

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.

However, when originally proposed it should be interesting to note that it read as follows:

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. This is taken from the Congressional Statutes at Large, Vol. 1, Page 97.

Once again for those who are historically challenged, it is a fact that the legislatures of many of the states regarded the Constitution as vague when establishing the rights of the individual, and therefore called for the Bill of Rights to be added as amendment in accordance with the Amendment process of the Constituion.

SO once again why is it necessary that I even mention the Militia. As I stated the original Bill of Rights was also known as the Rights of Citizens. No mention of states. So once again, either all ten of the first amendments are devised with the individual in mind, or they must all be devised with the state in mind. You can't have it both ways, try as you might.

Outlawing gun altogether will not work unless you have some way of ensuring that all the guns in this country are destroyed. Unless you can guarantee that one action, gun control is a farce. By taking away guns from law abiding citizens, you leave them in the hands of the criminals and what do you suppose they are going to do with them??

Would it be nice if we lived in a less violent country, undoubtable, but we don't. We tried it the liberal way for the last 45 years. THe sixities came along, and protest after protest left to the adoption of all these great and worthless ideals that have led us to where we are today. So let try it the conservative way for the next 45 and see which way works better.

dmk