So what's the Question? Isn't it CLEAR by now?

spclark

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons tobear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact anylaw to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by theConstitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [Peoplevs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]"" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and notmilitia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not suchmerely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, orbroken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important endto be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, sovitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that anylaw, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, whichcontravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]" "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is anunwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and beararms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men witharmy pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary andgallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."[Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]""For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting thewearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as areexposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be solikewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of theright that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire andcomplete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if anyportion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be,and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equallyforbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.)90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)"WHY is this still being debated? Isn't it clear by now our RIGHTS are GUARANTEED by our Constitution?

daddo

Simply; the government wants to "control" the people. Because some people are afraid of guns, therefore want us to give them up. Because some think the police will protect them. They attack the 2nd- just because it's there...! NO good answere.

old single shots

It is clear.Always has been.But that won't stop them.After all, if you want to control the people, then first you must disarm them.