The Founding Fathers made a clear connection between the well regulated Militia, the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Once that connection was broken by implementation of a standing army, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms was no longer valid in the context of the 2nd Amendment.

This didn't by itself invalidate ones right to own a gun, but the 2nd Amendment is no longer germane to the issue.

#22, if you're going to post the text of the 2nd Amendment, then why not post the whole thing:

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 amendment was written by people who detested standing armies and wanted a prepared populace to defend against invaders without the structure of a standing army.

Once we went to a standing army, we had no need for a well regulated Militia, and the 2nd Amendment outlived its usefulness.

"Now go out and educate yourself what the 2nd amendment is all about and you won't have to look around every corner and under bed for someone out to get you with their evil guns."

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.

The 2nd Amendment is about a government that detested a standing army like the British had at the time. Don't take my word for it. Read the 3rd Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The 2nd was never intended to be interpreted as the NRA would have you believe. The founders wanted a populace that would be ready at a moment's notice to fend off invaders. It survived its usefulness when a standing armed force became reality.

As a Capitol Hill resident, I look forward to hitting on Sanford's Argentine fiancée.

"'Just Like Obama, GOP Senator Evolves on Gay-Marriage Stance"

"'Republican= flip flop
Obama = evolves"

Wondering if KBM or Dalton can clear up this false equivalency by stating which member of the President's family had to come out of the closet for Obama to "evolve."

"... if you think Romney is a disgusting arrogant elitist than you did not pay any attention to his campaign. Romney pays his taxes and, as I remember, even left off his standard deduction increasing his taxes."

Do you mean the same Romney who wouldn't release his tax returns from 2009 and 2010?