I'm not arguing with the position espoused, however, isn't it time to move
beyond the founding fathers argument? I doubt anybody anymore considers
what the founding fathers thought to be extremely persuasive. Unfortunately
everybody is afraid is to raise this critique for fear of abrocating the
mythology of the country.

We like to think of them as all knowing. But as jefferson admits, they
aren't. They lived in a different time, a time where the language and the
issues were different. I find their intent irrelevant, it makes a nice
sidenote, but what we should focus on is the legal means to restrict
restrictions. We ought to focus upon the words of the law and possible
interpretations of said laws.

My theory on the wording of the Second Amendment supports personal ownership
of guns. I also think the term well regulated was inserted not to have any
meaning, but to provide ground for society's shifts in mindset. The Bill of
Rights is to provide some limits on government control while allowing the
system to remain flexible to society's needs. Well Regulated was their way
to allow restrictions in the future if it was deemed necessary.

I'm sure many out there disagree wiht me and will probably respond. I hope
so, we need to proliferate these ideas and develop the concepts supporting
ownership of guns. I just see the debate stagnating around the founders'
intents. I do not find this a persuasive argument and for the sake of our
right I hope I am alone. We need to refine our arguments in case I am not
alone.

Travis Neal
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com