Sorry to post so late. Your article was good and so very sad.

Log on to: Bath School disaster.

This story is another mass killing in 1927.

Rita,
Nowhere is the Second Amendment to the Constitution mentioned in this essay. The 2nd Amendment was ratified because the founders of this nation realized that political power is a Frankenstein monster, in most cases. Sometimes, this monster, while well-intentioned during the conceptual phase, becomes an unstoppable, insane killer (such as today, in 2007). The only way to protect our lives and liberties from this monster is to remain well-armed. Well-armed to kill out-of-control politicians and office-holders, as necessary, before they kill us, or incarcerate us. That's the reality behind the 2nd Amendment. It gives us a fighting chance against tyrany. Thomas Jefferson once stated the "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." He said nothing about hunting, as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.
As an aside, the psychopath that destroyed the lives of those young people (and the lives of their families) was allowed into this nation by the federal politicians. They failed to comply with the will of the majority of Americans who didn't and still don't wish to see our nation become the Babylonian cesspool that it has become since Kennedy and Humprey and Cellar rammed the 1965 Immigration Act down our collective throats. I don't think we have a single interest that's catered to anymore by the federal politicians. That being said, now would be an especially terrible time to restrict gun ownership.
Rabbit

Actually, the Second Amendment was referred to in the subtitle of the article. Specifically, I wrote "The right to bear arms needs to have a caveat or two." I may not have referred to it as the Second Amendment, but that is what the Second Amendment is.

Having this right would not have helped the students in the Virginia Tech classrooms; none would be allowed to enter classrooms packing weaponry. It's too late for any of the victims of the Virginia Tech tragedy to enjoy this right afforded them by our founding fathers.

If you will re-read what I wrote, never did I say that the Second Amendment should be repealed. Instead, I advocated certain time restrictions be put in effect in order to enable those involved in the sale of guns to properly inspect an individual's pedigree, if you will. A lengthier waiting period in this case may have revealed this shooter's previous mental health issues, along with the warnings that had been placed in his file. Once again, I repeat that those with the desire merely to protect themselves should surely pass muster and procure their instruments. Those who have a blemish on their record should be scrutinized more carefully. Would it stop them from getting their weapons? No. But it would certainly slow them down somewhat, and perhaps alert the proper authorities to their attempts to purchase a firearm.

If I am reading you correctly, you want us to shoot politicians who enact bad policy rather than just handling the matter at the polls?

You missed my points, I believe, but I'm glad you had the opportunity to make yours.

I don't feel I've missed your point at all. If I go back and re-read what you wrote, you've implied that somebody, somewhere, in the GOVERNMENT (the 'proper authorities'), should have the power to say that you or I can't procure a firearm until THEY say so. Bluntly, I don't agree with you on that. That is illegal under the US Constitution, and negates the reason it was changed to include the 2nd Amendment, which states: "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." "...[A] caveat or two" is infringement.
As for handling the matter at the polls, who counts the votes? Diebold? And what do the votes of us little people matter anyway, to the officeholders? Do you remember the demise of Proposition 187 in California a few years back? 2/3 of the people (over four million souls) of that state voted to deny state and federal welfare opportunities to the illegal colonizers from Mexico. Three federal judges on the 9th Circuit in San Francisco 'overruled' those four million-plus citizens with their self-righteous 'opinion' that it would be illegal. Now we have Mexifornia. Recently, the officeholders in Washington have decided that they have the power to ignore the 4th and 5th Amendments with the Military Commissions Act and the USA Patriot Act. Have you looked at those two gems? When is enough enough, Rita, from the 'proper authorities'? Who's going to stop them? An armed-at-their-discretion populace?
By the way, I loved your latest. Couldn't agree more. May I send that one to some other sites?

I think we've gotten off the original topic and gone to immigration. That's the topic of a future article, so perhaps we can continue this debate at that time. I don't believe we disagree on that one, though, but we'll see!

My final comment about the gun control issue is this: Despite the original intent and language of some of the wording of the constitution, "we" have found it necessary to make changes to it from time to time. Remember, the original constitution did not allow women to vote; it also took an amendment to abolish slavery and give the 18-year-olds fighting for our country the right to vote.

In this case, if we take "without infringement" literally, it would mean even without regard to age, mental ability level, or past criminal records which clearly showed that firearms were involved with negative consequences.

This has been great fun, Rabbit, but I'd rather just share some great crawfish!