It always strikes me as funny how one of the gun nutters favorite arguments has to do with their interpretation of the Constitution, based on what they think the founders intended. What these Constitutional scholars always forget about the Second Ammendment is the part about the well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

As far as I can tell they'd rather forget that part, and as far as I've seen very few gun nutters are interested in taking part in a well regulated militia, with the exception of the members of some white supremacist and extremist militias.

They only focus on one part of a sentence out of context, which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Of course that doesn't apply to felons who used a firearm to commit their crime and nor should it apply to people who are insane, or anyone affiliated in any way with a terrorist organization whether foreign or domestic.

Their argument is tired and weak.