indros13's Journal: A foe!

I added my first foe today for being a rabid 2nd Amendment booster. To educate this poor sap, I have included a little piece I wrote several years ago below:

The two important phrases in this controversial amendment are "well-organized militia" and "common defense." Individuals fulfill neither of these requirements for rights to bear arms, unless they are involved in law enforcement or the armed forces. The Supreme Court, which hasn't ruled on the Second Amendment since 1934, last stated that the individual interpretation is not the correct one.[1] Since the National Rifle Association, its members, and the people it represents are all individual owners of firearms, they have no real constitutional protection for their claims to gun rights and should recognize the use of sensible legislation for the common defense of citizens. Indeed, all other rights guaranteed in the Constitution (read First Amendment) are subject to reasonable regulation; firearms shouldn't be any kind of exception.[2]

[1]Ray Rivera, "Guns Have A Long History In The United States," The Salt Lake Tribune, (8/15/99), http://www.sltrib.com/1999/aug/08151999/utah/15456.htm
[2]Daniel D. Polsby, "Second reading: treating the Second Amendment as normal constitutional law," (reprinted from 'Reason,' March 1996), Current (June 1996 n383 p3(5))