[supercat]

THIS is point those who *blindly* support the Second Amendment FAIL to comprehend - firearm ownership is not for every one - there HAS to be some qualification such as sanity (sound mind), of-age, clean, non-felony record ...

I see nothing that indicates the term "people" was intended to mean anything less than "all free persons". I will grant that slaves were never intended to have their rights protected. Until emancipation (either by age or court process) minors are legally slaves of their parents. People convicted of severe crimes can become slaves of the state per the Thirteenth Amendment.

Free people, however, are not to be denied arms.

[_Jim]

Free people, however, are not to be denied arms.

So, of-age, sane, non-felons are to be considered 'free people'?

(You sound like a nut ball with this 'free people' BS.)

[flashbunny]

Please, for your own sanity, follow what I've learned: Don't bother debating _Jim. Instead, go to your nearest door and engage it in a conversation. It's much more rewarding.

[plusone]

When the 2nd refers to 'arms', does it just mean guns or can the definition be broadened to include any weapon? If, for example, some inventor discovers a way to mass produce mini-nukes the size of coffee cans that are powerful enough to exterminate one city block, and sells them for 500 dollars: A) Does he have the 2nd amendment protection to do so? B) Would you knowingly live next door to someone who had bought one?