yes.
otherwise, for the liberal position, there's two books out now on the topic. Mostly, the position is much like Jordan's: it debunks the stupidity of the data liberals often use such as ZOMG! so many people die from gun violence in this country. We must get rid of "assault rifles"! The liberal usually cites the stats without accounting for the fact that 55-60% are suicides for which assault weapons bans do no good. etc.
Speaking of which, reading these two books revealed that "well regulated" does not mean regulating who can and can have guns, who can make/sell/repair them or anything of the sort. Rather, well-regulated meant that the people who would comprise the militia during that era were an ornery and unreliable lot. They were good shots, but they weren't orderly. Washington and other Rev War leadership had a helluva a time keeping these guys under control. Thus, "well-regulated" meant that they needed to learn how to shoot and carry weapons properly, drill, etc.
also2, Craig Whitney, author of Living with Guns: the liberal case for gun rights, goes over the history of gun ownership and argues that no one thought there was a need to speak specifically to private gun ownership because there were so many guns in the colonies and were regularly used for personal reasons of hunting and self-protection - especially on the frontier - that no one really thought they needed to speak to the issue and assumed it would fall among the unenumerated rights in the B0R - contra Bellesisles' discredited research.
At 07:32 PM 5/7/2013, Carrol Cox wrote:
> The left argument on bun rights should be that it's a fake debate over
>trivia designed to lull liberals to sleep because Obama is for once on their
>side, or seems to be.
>
>It is intellectual and political clutter.
>
>Carrol
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)