[Amerigomag]

Do any FREEPERS know if the legislative history of the second amendment sheds any light on this argument?

It's a legitimate question but I don't know if it's germain.

The right to self protection is "in the eye of the beholder". By that I mean that the issue of the method of self protection is individual and only balanced by the rights of other individuals that my actions might effect, not the government's policy.

[ffrancone]

If you believe, as do I, that the constitution should be interpreted by the original intent of the framers (rather that with modern notions such as a living, breathing, constitution with pentumbras and emanations), then the legisative history leading up to that point is often very illuminating about the intent of the framers.

Introducing an "eye of the beholder" standard starts being very subjective. When you have leftist judges, their eyes perceive no need for self protection regardless what the constitution says. I'd much rather go with what our founders actually intended when interpreting the constitution.