[Peisistratus]

"You will notice (unless English is not your first language)that the first part of the sentence ("A well-regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free State...") condtions the second part ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). In other words, it was necessary for the population to be armed in 1789 because the government was incapable of defending or policing them."

That's utter BS. Let's take this sentence:

"A well-read electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

The first is not a requirement, but a reason.

"Now, let's delve into a bit of history when discussing the 2nd Amendment; "

Your views of history are quite in opposition to reality.

[More DNC talking points follow]

This is a pro-gun website, as stated by its founder. Perhaps you would be happier elsewhere?

[Wombat101]

Hello! I happen to own four weapons myself. I'm certainly not anti-gun, but I do realize that it is necessary for reasons of civil peace for the government to regulate the use of firearms. The fact is that the very laws you regard as an infringement of your rights were constituted, debated and passed by democratically-elected legislatures. You can disagree with them, but you can't call them the illegal actions of a rampant govenrment.

I'm sorry if filling out an application,paying a fee, and dealing with the bureacracy is a great inconvenience for you, but the alternative is terrible to contemplate (there are certainly, you'll agree, way too many irresponsible people in the world, not as rational as us, to be trusted with guns, no?).

My views on history are certainly NOT in opposition to reality: I hold an MA in Western Civilization. What is your qualification to interpret history, I wonder?

"This is a pro-gun website, as stated by its founder. Perhaps you would be happier elsewhere?"

Ah, standard response; I can't argue with you, please leave. How sad.