How exactly does a "well-regulated militia" fit into your analysis?

O'Donnell is hardly a constitutional law expert. 200+ years, and the second amendment is still around. It's not going to be repealed and it's not going to be reinterpreted. Get use to it.

So, because I procrastinate too much, I looked at the transcript (full text is below). Now, I have no idea what she's about to say (then again, neither do you); but what are the odds that she was about to complete her sentence with "there is a debate as to what that right means. Courts have held that it is a state right and not an individual right." (And there is a debate as to what the Second Amendment does. Some federal courts have ruled that it creates a right that belongs to the states, and others have ruled that the right belongs to individuals. It will be reinterpreted.) Whether or not she is right or just wrongheaded on gun control generally, folks using the snippet about a "right" are being unfair.

Hasselbeck: "So you can’t- You can't take way the right to, to bear arms."

O’Donnell: "Well, it’s not really a right. There’s debate as to what that-"

Hasselbeck: "It is a right. It’s in our Constitution. It’s the Second Amendment."

O’Donnell: "Well, let’s talk instead of yell."

Hasselbeck: "I’m not yelling."

Rosie, enough!

Just keep your mouth on the muff!

How exactly does a "well-regulated militia" fit into your analysis?

It means having a population well enough trained (or trainable) and armed to secure the security of the state.

Nice try dumbass.

Let's not forget hyper gun control advocate Chuck Schumer and his hypocrasy on who has the right to bears arms (hint: it's not you, but it is him)

http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin030516.htm

From the gramatical structure of the 2nd ammendment, it looks to me like "well-regulated milita" is not a qualifier for owning guns, it is the reason for all people to have the ability to own guns. There are two reasons to have a militia. 1) protect the homeland domestically should the army being to fail in that regard and 2)protect the homeland from the government should it become opressive.

In the event of 1 it can be reasonably assumed that the milita would have to be formed and armed quickly as the enemy would already be inside our territory. Personal gun ownership may make for logistics headaches down the road, with different people having different types of ammunition requirements, but it would give you instant access to force. Without personal gun ownership the state would have to keep armories with enoug arms and ammunition to rapidly equip such a force instantly, and that would be cumbersome economically and logistically.

In the event of 2 it makes no sense to have all the weapons in the hands of the state. Since it would be the state that is being the opressor it stands to reason that should a militia try to form to fight the theoretical tyrany they would be unarmed. To gain access to arms they would have to storm armed depots controled by the state, which would probably destroy the militia before it could become an effective protective force for the people. If the population already owns their own arms then they can begin the fight in more effective, and less suicidal, ways.

Rosie is a fat broad with and attitude and a mike. Why i'll never understand. If she was the only thing on my TV the fish would be watching TV in about 3 minutes.

Nelson Lund comments on Amendment II in [u]The Heritage Guide to the Constitution[/u] (p. 320).

"As a political gesture to the Anti-Federalists, a gesture highlighted by the Second Amendment's prefatory reference to the value of a well-regulated militia, express recognition of the right to arms was something of a sop. But the provision was easily accepted because [i]everyone[/i] agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion."

The founders were determined to establish a government of the people. All understood the obvious -- that the right to keep and bear arms is an implicit and absolute requirement for ensuring that the government remains in the people's hands rather than the reverse.

The constitution clearly states that Americans should be allowed to own guns. Remember that at the time the only firearms were muzzle loaded black powder. They never imagined Assault rifles and tech-9's or even semi-auto pistols.

Some people take advantage of the right to bear arms. Criminals will also always be able to find weapons.

I feel that one should be allowed to have a rifle but that won't help you much in a break-in (very hard to hide under the pillow).

It's a tough issue.

Yes, at the time the only firearms were muzzleloaders. That's true. But, that's all the governments had, too. The People have the right to be as well armed as the government is, otherwise they have no way to protect themselves should the government become oppressive

The 18th century use of the word "regulated" descrided being well and properly equipped. Also, the blackpower burning muzzleloader was the AK47 of the day. In fact,the American Colonist'a rifled firearms were far superior to the British Army's smooth bores.

I'm not really that bothered about your gun debate, but I do see the difference between opposing gun ownership and having a well-trained gun-carrying bodyguard, as opposed to a mentally deranged numbnuts with a dislike for schoolkids.

rosie is also ignorant as to the ways of the amish. armed or not armed, the amish would never have tried to disarm or eject him from the schoolhouse. they're pacifists... it's not their way. also, all the gun control laws in the world will not take the weapons out of the hands of those who would use them against peacful citizens. case in point; have any of the anti-drug laws stopped the production of "meth," or "crack?"

I do see the difference between opposing gun ownership and having a well-trained gun-carrying bodyguard, as opposed to a mentally deranged numbnuts with a dislike for schoolkids.

Till that bodygaurd snaps and wonders into to school.

The bottom line is in denying the second amendment Ms O'Donnell is saying that even the well training bodygaurd shouldn't be carrying the gun, he doesn't have the right. Let's remember what she did to Tom Selleck on that sorry excuse of a talk show a while back.

My gut reaction is that the people who are against the 2nd are against the second not because they don't like guns, but because they don't like the people who do. My father gave me my first gun, when I turned 16 which I've used at over a thousand times shooting ranges only and would never part with. Nor would I use it against a living human or animal. I love that gun, Not because it's a gun, but because it was given to me by my father. Most liberals hear that I have a gun, and that my father passed it down and that automaticlly makes me a blood thirsty killer.

RC, you are not a blood thirsty killer. and nor are most gun owners. I think that if I came to power (unlikely), I would want gun ownership and use to be as well regulated as driving. In other words, if you have one, you know how to use it safely, and if you don't, it's down to you to pay the penalty. Is this unreasonable. Gun ownership is your right, fair enough, but gun use is a privilege IMO.

All I have to say is Rosie O Donnell is a disgrace to all extreme liberals. However, the extreme liberals lack common sense in many aspects when it comes to anything so maybe she is rather good at what she does. This is not the first time she has said something and taken it back either. But then again, thats what Democartic Candidate Kerry did the whole time he was running for office so maybe that is what she is suppose to do.