Sorry for the long delay in answering. The Second Amendment enshrines a Natural Right. It does not grant a Right, but acknowledges and protects a Right. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you will see that our Founders held that Rights are endowed by our Creator, and governments are instituted among men to secure those Creator endowed Rights. For me, that means God grants us our Rights. For someone else, that might mean evolution granted them their Natural Rights. In the end, Natural Rights exist prior to, and independent of governments and the whims of man.

I hope that helps, Sara.

No. I am an athiest, so you can keep gods out of this. To me, the right to one's own life is primal (all else is secondary). It follows that being able/allowed to defend oneself is also primal. It follows that one should have access to the sufficient means to do so. In this day and age, the handgun is the most effective and efficient means -- it permits a senior citizen in a wheelchair a reasonable change to fight off a small gang.

Well, Houston is the 4th largest city in the country. If is WAY bigger than DC. I've also lived 6 years in Manhattan as well as in the sticks. I can tell you that my ethical/legal behavior does not change due to population density. Nor does the behavior of anyone I know. Your mileage may vary, but I doubt it. I don't see that there is any reason to believe that density per se induces illegal behavior.

Besides, that's irrelevant, as there is no reason to say that one's Constitutional rights should be altered by population density.

Now I can admit that urban areas may have more than their fair share of criminals. But again, the presence or misbehavior of deviants must never be used as an excuse to restrict the rights of the non-criminals...do what you want to interfere with the criminals, but only if you leave the good guys alone. It is NEVER permissible to knowingly punish the innocent for the bad behavior of others.

Now I am open to the suggestion that local conditions might require different punishments for the MISUSE of firearms. I just cannot countenance prior restraint of a primal right. And there are plenty of legal precedents that concur with this philosophy.

Well, state's rights obviously do apply here, as the SA hasn't been incorporated. My PERSONAL feeling is that the less the state adds to the Feds, the better. Vermont is a case of minimal additional regulation. My state of TX is also low on the scale. Note that the Fed regs cover interstate transactions, automatic weapons, and age/criminal history/mental health restrictions. Both commercial and private sellers must abide by those restrictions. The feds do NOT cover issues of open or concealed carry, storage conditions, etc.

As I said, I like it that way and the state of Vermont seems to get along quite well with minimal regulation. Please note that the MISUSE of a firearm is readily covered by other laws against brandishing/threatening/assault/battery/murder. An equivalent circumstance would be misusing the First Amendment by shouting "FIRE, etc" without a fire being present -- there are no prior restrictions, only a penalty for misuse.

Just my $1.00, currently being inflated to a buying power of $0.02.

This is already the case, but there are limitations. I believe that the legal criterion is that you cannot sell to a person who has been involuntarily committed (someone else can verify this). In theory, the NICS system should have the data so that commercial sales should be blocked. Also note that it is illegal to transfer a gun privately to anyone who cannot legally own one (including those with mental disorders). However, the questions of where you draw the line and still maintain patient privacy are up for debate (I, for one, am happy with the current limitations). Also, it is important to keep the NICS database current -- Cho slipped through because Virginia did not do their part (although he still could have ultimately purchased anything he wanted illegally "on the street").

altogether, open firearms sales are tolerable I suppose, provided it's ensured mentally unstable, extreme and low IQ individuals are legally prevented from purshasing, which obviously not always the case.

why do you keep referring to the 2nd Amendment as being "God-given."

No we're not saying that. That's a strawman argument. Almost all of us are happy with the Federal regulations that restrict ownership according to "the weapon, the carrier’s age, mental state, criminal record, etc". There is an "instant" NICS check for every commercial firearms purchase that checks all of these criteria. Some may disagree, of course, but the status quo is more or less reasonable. What often becomes unreasonable are the many local restrictions that are added on to this Federal floor.

What I'm saying is that the First Amendment gives us the freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, but there are limits on each of those, just as there are limits on our right to bear arms.

No matter how much the gun nuts complain about it, there will always be limits on the right to bear arms. And I think there should be even more limits on that right because I think too many idiots own guns.

DJ, don't expect a "rebirth" from me after I read the Lott book (I ordered "More Guns, Less Crime" for about a buck at a used online store). I'm eager to read it, but it is doubtful that it will make me think more guns in my neighborhood is wise.

The Supremes rejected that line of logic quite soundly. In fact, I believe they were even derisive about it.