[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we've been over this before, and there's another thread here where we're going over it again. But I thought I would take the opportunity to clarify my position:

1) The 2nd amendment refers to arms necessary for militia.

2) If the 2nd amendment does not refer to militia, and it refers to an individual's rights to own a gun, it doesn't change what the amendment says: that the federal government does not control the right to keep and bear arms.

3) The 9th amendment says that even if a right is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is still retained by the people. That is, the Bill of Rights does not create rights, it guarantees rights which already pre-existed. So this confirms that the Federal government cannot make decisions about a person's right to keep and bear arms.

4) The right to keep and bear arms is thus reserved to the people. The Second Amendment has no bearing on the question of whether guns should be freely available or sharply controlled. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue, as important as that issue is. And that leaves the matter completely in the hands of the political process. I'm comfortable with that. People decide, by legislative choice, many important aspects of their lives together in society. The wisdom, effectiveness, configuration, and moral virtue of gun control is an appropriate matter for the expression of popular sovereignty rather than constitutional control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't Congress then regulate guns under the Commerce clause?