I decided to read through the Bill of Rights since that is the key piece of the debate. Why are the first two the ones always discussed and argued about? I hear no arguments about the ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This says that the Constitution can only give people more rights and not limit any others already held by the people. Now we have come to an argument on State and the people.
"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."
Here we have the purpose of the militia is to guard the State. People were guaranteed the right to arms since citizens made up most of the army. We now have a professional army but a time may come when we will all be called to protect the security. The key for our present debates is that the right shall not be infringed. Legalese can leave much room for interpretation but I see none here. However you feel about someone walking down the street with an RPG, it is his or her right as defined by the laws which we hold so dear. Gun control is unconstitutional.
Do we want to live in a place where we need armed teachers? I don't. What manner of society have we created where people shoot down hundreds in schools, where people get in gunfights at funerals, where someone feels better strapped while he waters his pansies?
Oh the loopholes of law. Do these scenarios violate any of my rights as a person not covered in the Constitution? I am not sure but imagine it is rather likely. These events do bring to light my central issue on guns. I just don't want to live in a place where I need a gun. Should we not examine ourselves. We want to arm teachers but don't think many of the skills to teach. I'm confused.
I gotta go for a bit...