[Exhibitman]

My $0.02 here:

People on one side tend to forget the words "well regulated" in arguing for unfettered access to any gun at any time. People on the other side tend to forget that there is a basic right to have a firearm and a mechanism for amending the Constitution to rescind that right. For better and worse, that's our system.

People on both sides tend to ignore the actual historical basis for the amendment. The men writing the Bill of Rights were leery of standing armies and therefore wanted every citizen to be in the militia, and they wanted everyone in the militia to be armed. If someone was prohibited from participating in the militia, the leaders of the Founders’ generation would not have wanted them to have access to weapons. In fact, the 18th-century regulations that required citizens to participate in the militia also prohibited blacks and Indians from participating as arms-bearing members. Which brings up another basis for the original right: preserving the ability of state-sanctioned fugitive slave patrols to cross state lines while armed.

The history of gun regulation, especially open carry, is tinged with racism. Interesting footnote here--the first bans on open carry in Cali were championed by Ronald Reagan and the GOP as a direct effort to stop the Black Panthers from openly carrying guns. The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods. They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill. Yup, that's right: Reagan was for gun control.

The historical reasons for gun ownership are not present today but a more pressing one is: potential authoritarian rule. The Nazis passed laws and regulations stripping Jews of the right to have weapons. We all know what happened next. The Soviets quickly banned guns in the USSR. The December decree of the CPC of 1918, "On the surrender of weapons", ordered people to surrender any firearms, swords, bayonets and bombs. The Nazis rounded up and killed millions of defenseless 'undesirables' in their murder camps yet had a terrible time clearing the Warsaw Ghetto when a small armed resistance was mounted. I believe that all minority group members have a moral imperative to arm themselves and become proficient in use of their weapons as a bulwark against the rule of the majority metastasizing into an authoritarian regime that will seek to eradicate what its leaders deem 'undesirables'. I strongly believe that private gun ownership is the best way to prevent the cattle cars from rolling to the death camps: you come for an armed minority populace, you better bring a big supply of body bags. The wannabe fascists know it too.

i am a responsible gun owner (decline to state specifics). I've pulled and used my weapon once for self-defense, in a condo complex where I was on the board right after the 1994 earthquake, and was very happy I had it at the time. Just showing it deterred the intruders. Due to the quake and power loss we had to manually open the gate to our underground parking area. Two rough characters from a low-rent apartment complex down the block saw the open gate and muscled past the board president "to look around". Me and two other board members were there and we had our guns. We stepped into the aisle of the garage and showed the weapons. The intruders saw the guns. One nodded and said "cool", and they walked right back out the way they came in. We had no further incursions until the property was red-tagged due to the damage and we all had to leave. I suspect that the two passed word that our complex was not an easy target.

I am all for allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns in their homes and at work. I am also all for keeping guns away from crooks, violent and mentally ill people by regulating the acquisition of a gun to screen as many of them out as we can, for making the unregulated sale of non-historical arms illegal for the same reasons, and for making the carrying of a gun as difficult as the acquisition of a driver's license, if not more. Well regulated...You leave your house or work and go into public armed, society has a stronger interest in making sure you aren't a moon bat and know WTF you are doing. I also believe that certain sensitive places, like schools and airports and large gatherings should be gun-free areas if the local governments determine it is in the best interests of their populaces to make it so, and that private businesses have the right to declare weapon-free zones. The 2nd Amendment applies to state regulation, not private. You want to work in my office, leave your piece at home or in your car.