You stated militia can bear arms.  Where are these militia you speak of?  Who are they?  Where are they suppose to get their weapons?

During the D.C. gun ban, crime actually increased as did homicide. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Dchomicidechart.svg  If you want you can look at the U.K and see that crime has increased there to as well as violent crime with their ban in place.

Gun control does not translate into crime control.  Nor do banning guns lower crime.  Banning guns is not the solution to stop or to prevent crime.

"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."

It does mention militia.  That much the NYT got right.  However it does not say "Only the Militia".  And as TPP points out, the militia are US.

It does say - unequivocally - the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.  Not some people.  Not just white or black people.  Not just Gay or Bi people.  THE PEOPLE.  And then of course the last part (the part that they are trying to change with legislation, not the correct way) - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

No, they did not decide.  They just do not understand english.

If you don't want one, don't buy one. How easy is that. I guess liberals only cry for "rights" that cost money and redistributes wealth. They can't get a freebie out of the second amendment, so they don't like it. Well, here's a news flash for you criminals don't care what the law is, thats why they are criminals (we know liberals have an a comprehension problem with this as they don't know what illegal means either). Nobody is forcing anyone to own a gun. If you're too incompetent to learn its proper use and safety, stay away. Just don't pin your "fear" on others.

Do criminals follow the laws?  Yes, let's take a survey. The next time your house gets broken into or you get held up at gun point why don't you ask the criminal/robber where they obtained their gun and if its registered.

Oh wait, people have already have done the survey for you.  If you take look at the FBI's Uniformed Crime Report in 2007 you'll see that states wtih the right to carry laws are lower in the following:

30% homicide rates, 46% robbery, 12% aggravated assault, and 22% violent crime.

Even Michael Moore in his movie Bowling for Columbine (which I might add that he is very pro-gun laws/restrictions/ban) states that the HIGHER concentration of NRA members an area/state has shown that there is a correlation to lower gun crimes in that area.  The majority of NRA members are gun owners themselves.

Well,  I own 2 as it were. 

Funny that you didn't read the one comment I made in the op that pretty much indicates where I stand on the issue.  I was just mocking you for being borderline retarded  and easily baited into telling us all about your hard core real 'merican e-peen.  You responded predictably, all things considered. 

But thanks for playing. 

That was with the gun ban in place.  And the court is not a legislative body.

I would hope it unnecessary to point out, but we're not talking about a 'policy' - it's a Constitutional prohibition against government infringement of a basic right.  The court (as intended by the Framers, anyway) has no role in making policy in any event.

False premise.  The 'plain language' reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  While explicitly predicated on the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of a free state, it plainly does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms...", it says "the right of the people".  So your the NYT's plain language argument loses.

Your The NYT's subjective notion of what 'makes sense' is just that.  But that subjectivity is one of the many reasons the Constitution exists.  It was 'entirely sensible' to the British Parliament to tax the colonists without representation.

Chicago can't choose to selectively amend the Constitution on its own whim.  To pick & choose what parts it likes and what parts it doesn't.  This is also true of so-called sanctuary cities, which have also explicitly chosen to selectively ignore Federal law*.  There is a mechanism to amend that Constitution; it's been used successfully many times.  If it's OK for Chicago to ignore the Second Amendment and San Fran to declare itself a sanctuary to illegal immigrants, what's to stop, say, Cleveland from ignoring the equal protection clause if it wants to?

I don't own a gun, never have, wouldn't wish to absent some pretty good and presently unforeseen reasons specific to my circumstances.  But I have the right to purchase one if I decide I should, and I want it to stay that way.  I would want it to stay that way for my children & their children.  They can choose not to 'keep and bear arms' but I want them to continue to have the freedom of that choice.  I doubt the Second Amendment will ever be repealed, and certainly hope it isn't.

*It's the bitterest of ironies that the Federal government has chosen to ignore those self-same laws.

Reason for edits: I assumed dan_l agreed with the NYT.  Maybe not.

Thanks Daiwa.  

Nice attempt at a consensus. The "understanding" issue rests solely with the author, a person that appears to enjoy (by his own words, in multiple blogs) "mocking" and has a proven track record of being less than truthful. You may recall your credibility issue.

In my original comment I used "you" subjectively, you took it personal (understandably, but one would need better knowledge of a persons beliefs to assume that, and easily cleared up. You chose to "mock"). I suppose if you consider yourself a liberal, that would fuel the fire. If you don't, it should have been easy to see it wasn't directed at you. I could only guess that a liberal might take offense to what I wrote.

I'll have to ask (since they are all grown). I'll be sure to mention your "fun" articles. Perhaps you have another fascinating spreadsheet story.

We could go on as long as you wish on each and every article. I attempt to treat each separately, while you are not content to do that... and that's OK. Totally up to you. I understand some people have grudges and a thin skin to boot, but that's not my problem.

I'm still wondering how he's going to handle that one.  Maybe his speciality in the military was....'retreat'? 

You speak of policy then reference a constitutional amendment... do you know the difference between an amendment and a policy moron? Must be  a LIBRUHL thing!!!!

"Chicago's ban on handguns was not an amendment." Was it a law Dan? Was it a policy? The indented portion of your article, which I assume is a cut and paste, makes no mention of a policy. Are you calling the 2nd Amendment, or Chicago law, or the Supreme court ruling a policy? Now let's see:

"About 10,000 Americans died by handgun violence, according to federal statistics, in the four months that the Supreme Court debated which clause of the Constitution it would use to subvert Chicago’s entirely sensible ban on handgun ownership. The arguments that led to Monday’s decision undermining Chicago’s law were infuriatingly abstract, but the results will be all too real and bloody.

This began two years ago, when the Supreme Court disregarded the plain words of the Second Amendment and overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, deciding that the amendment gave individuals in the district, not just militias, the right to bear arms. Proceeding from that flawed logic, the court has now said the amendment applies to all states and cities, rendering Chicago’s ban on handgun ownership unenforceable.

Once again, the court’s conservative majority imposed its selective reading of American history, citing the country’s violent separation from Britain and the battles over slavery as proof that the authors of the Constitution and its later amendments considered gun ownership a fundamental right. The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally."

Humm, funny no mention of "policy" until your little nonsensical one line at the end (that I referred to as blathering)

"Fascinating that the total failure of a policy is used as a justification for the continuation of a policy"

You might as well substitute "amendment" with oranges and "policy" with apples. Sounds like you have your wife buffaloed into believing you have intelligence (good for you). If you can't comment coherently with what you paste, just put links in your article, then everyone can just read the news without your slant on it.

BTW shouldn't your Blog be Ibepastin? Not that your opinion would be more interesting, even if you could articulate it...just saying.

Do not confuse them with facts.  They get in the way of of their unreasoned hatred of the 2nd amendment and freedom.