While the snide answer here is: "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?" the long answer is a bit more involved. Who comprised the militia of the late 18th century? Regular citizens. What type of weapons did they posess? The same ones as professional soldiers (though the US had no standing army). In light of this (and other considerations I will leave for another time) I believe the Constitution's authors intended the rights of individual citizens to posess firearms and that Congress should make no law forbiding them from doing so.

Does the second amendment only apply to a Militia?

If you use 'militia' in the original sense (all able bodies) then yes. If you intend militia to mean National Guard and Army soldiers the no.

Should we have a right to carry concealed guns?
In general, yes. In cases where there is a sufficient reason to the contrary (inside courtrooms, in the hands of the mentally unstable, or pathologically violent) reasonable restrictions could be enacted. From a constitutional standpoint the prohibition of concealed carry should allow for open carry otherwise the right to "bear arms" is infringed.

Should guns be more or less available then they are now?

More available. You wouldn't believe the price of firearms around here and the hoops you have to jump through to buy them. The scarcity and expense are related directly to the amount of federal and state regulation regarding firearm transfers.

Should there be gun registration?
No. Gun registration serves no purpose other than to provide added hassle and potential legal liability to gun owners and (for the conspiracy nuts out there) provide the government of the names and addresses of everyone that will need to be rounded up when the confiscations start.

Should we have gun control?
That depends what you mean. Should there be types of weapons that regular citizens should not own (at least not without adequate scrutiny)? Of course. No one I know is honestly advodating widespread private ownership of shoulder fired rockets, towable artillery or even fully automatic weapons. HOWEVER if by 'gun control' you mean to restrict firearm ownership to certain classes of people (police officers, military), restrict ownership by configuration or cosmetics (handgun bans, 'assault weapons' bans) or infringe on the public's right to own firearms at all you are out of constitutional bounds.

Would having gun control save lives?
Not on the whole. You may perhaps reduce the number of accidental firearms deaths (only a handful every year), but 'gun control' does nothing to control the criminal element which is by and large the greatest cause of firearms deaths. In fact the assurance that peacable persons are not in posession of firearms serves to embolden criminals to greater lawlesness. If you doubt this just observe the disparity between American and Britain home invasion rates (Britain banned private ownership of firearms some time ago). If that doesn't confince you compare the homicide rate in DC (complete firearm ban, annual contender for 'murder capital of the US' 45 homicides per 100k) to that of Dallas TX (concealed carry allowed, 15 per 100k)source

What would be the purpose of a gun control law?
Broadly speaking it would be to restrict the freedom of citizens from purchasing, owning, carrying of selling firearms. Such measures are generally an abridgement of 2nd amendment rights.

I'm sure I have kicked over a beehive here. There was a lot of ground to cover and I am sure I've left some things out or stated things poorly so please don't latch onto a three word snippet of what is above and go on a giant rant without confirming what was intended. My meanings should be clear, if not please say so and I will explain further, but the internet has taught me not to underestimate the ability of people to misread whatever is written so I resolve not so be surprised no matter what others say.

That's all for now.

Gun registration is a hidden tax. So are concealed weapons permits, and class3 weapon (sawed-offs, automatic rifles, silencers) fees. It is a nice way to keep track of guns, but I honestly don't know if the government is setting up for a large scale confiscation. I think they just want some cash.

I'm against gun control for the most part (at least how it is now). We have a constitution, and we should stick with it. Everyone should check out info on Switzerland. Everyone has assault rifles there. No one messes with them. Crime is low. Rules only hurt the people who are trying to obey them. Criminals have always gotten guns, and always will have them. I'm with Edward on this one.

i don;t think it will ever matter to criminals whether the gov't says they can guns or not. and people usually don't change their minds anyway.

I dont have school either,except for math. my views on gun control hmmm.

stapping a 45 to you hip is gun control baby!yeah! yes there should be Gun registration(i thought there was?) I dont know any of the other crap u law geeks r talking about though so im just gonna stop here.

In my opinion the government should have no say in what law abiding citizens carry for self defense and recreation. The regulation of guns by the government is counter intuitive. the founding fathers added the second amendment as a safeguard againt the tyrrany of the government. While it was not regarded as a likelihood it was seen as a possibility that a corrupt and oppressive force would take control of our country. Now a look at history tells the dangers of an unarmed populace v. corrupt governmnet (Germany, 1938) and the framers of the constitution foresaw this danger and gave the populace the ability to keep the government in check. 

On the question of concealed carry it is quite obvious that with the threat of terrorism it is necessary to have armed citizens wherever possible. In Israel citizens carrying concealed pistols have saved many lives from both gunmen and suicide bombers. 

On who does the second amendment apply to: it depends on what kind  of people are in the supreme court for the most part they refuse to touch it but my understanding of the Miller decision says that the right to bear arms applies to everybody but they can only bear arms of use to a military. This decision was against Miller who was in posession of a 16 inch shotgun, which the court said was not useful to any military. Its obvious that the supreme court needs better info but there is precedent for the universal right to bear arms.  

I am beginnig to repeat other people now so i'll just give my conclusion here. THe only form of gun control i support is the use of background checks. There should also be tougher sentencing of gun crime and pretty much any other form of crime. From an economic point of view that is the way to reduce crime, increase the cost of getting caught not the cost of self-defense.

You wanted to know my opinions on gun control and the like; should we have gun control as it is portrayed by the liberals? no, we should not. The more laws set into effect making it harder for the law abiding citizen to obtain firearms are doing nothing more than hurting us.  Those who choose to have no regard for the laws set before them will have no problems stealing a gun, buying one black market, or any other means of obtaining weapons in a matter that does not coincide with the law.  Yes we should have the right to carry concealed, who is to tell us that we cannot have at least a possible defense against an attacker.  Carrying concealed does not give you the right to whip out your gun and wave it around to deter a threat, for that you will be put away.  A concealed weapon may not even save your life, but then again it may.  Why shun the idea? Why put your lives in the hands of others, do I have local law enforcement to protect me? sure, if I can call them first, and hide inside a stab proof bullet proof box until they arrive or maybe they are already there.  Do you run the risk of still getting killed or injured if you carry concealed??? yes, you do.  Do you run the risk of getting killed or injured if you don't carry? yes, you do.  How many people carry a knife for utility purposes but also for possibility of self defense?  How many carry pepper spray? Some people will die from allergic reactions to pepper spray, but it too is deemed a non-lethal or less-than-lethal form of self defense. Why give the attacker any more of an edge than they already have?  No having gun control would not save lives; if Mr. Killer wants to shoot you dead, he will find a way to get a gun legally or not and kill you.  The purpose of a gun control law is to satisfy those who like to whine and cry that the world would be safer if we were to take guns away from everyone; guess what? Criminals will still get them.  Guns should be more available than they are now, prices do nothing but rise as more and more regulations are placed out there, like the magazine disconnect where a gun cannot be fired if the magazine is not in the weapon. Good concept if you drop the mag before someone takes it from you and tries to shoot you,  bad concept if you drop the mag but have to make one last shot and can't because your magazine isn't available. This "saftey feature" adds labor and expense to the manufacturing process of the gun therefore increasing the cost to us.  Gun registration, aka list of people with guns for the gov't to confiscate if they so choose to fly off the handle.  No thank you, it's about as useful as ballistic fingerprinting where they keep a record of a bullet fired from the barrel of your gun since the rifling in each barrel leaves a unique "fingerprint" on the bullet, problem is dirty barrels, scratched barrels, barrel wear from frequent use, all of things things change the "fingerprint" and it is no longer a match to the weapon, yet again making that useless.  If you dislike guns so much, don't choose to own one, don't marry someone who likes guns, but the simple fact is they aren't going away, because even if they are banned, they will still be in the hands of those out to harm you.  Also, in closing, for those that are extremely opposed to guns, or who find them "evil", how many of you have taken time to learn about them, to handle one, to fire one, to form your own opinion, not what is fed to you by your family or the media. We cannot let others make our minds up for us, once you have done your research, handled, and fired a weapon, and seriously thought about it, then make your decision, and at that point if you choose to still dislike firearms, then so be it, I personally can respect that, but do not tell those of us who are in favor of them that nobody should own a gun and that they are bad, and so on and so forth. 

-Ike D.

The constitution gives everyone who is a citizen of the united states of america the right to keep and bear arms. Not the cops and not the military. The founders didn't even want a standing military force in this country. The point of the 2nd amendment is to: protect the populace from dangerous criminals, (yes, self defense is a God given right that I choose to protect through force) but also to protect the populace from a dictator or a police state. The founders didn't trust any government, they chose to add the bill of rights to the constitution to help ensure that the gov. didn't get too powerful.

Our country was orig. a constitutional republic, the constitution of such cannot be changed by congress passing a law or a court decision. ANY gun control law that infringes on the 2nd amendment is: by the constitution, to be declared null and viod and is not to be obeyed by any true american.

If the 2nd amendent goes first (and not without a fight ill tell you), then the rest will be sure to go. You like the idea of living in china, b/c we're headed for it!

I may be wrong but i do not see a single arguement for gun control in this debate. Although i am definitely anti-legislation here I would like to see an opposing view point. I mean debates usually have two sides right?