First of all, the Supreme Court has ruled that everywhere the Constitution says, "The People" it is talking about all the people, no exceptions.  The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of "The People" to keep and bear arms.  That means all of us; you, me, Dick Cheney, everyone.

Your claim about the 2nd Amendment being about putting down slave rebellions does not fit the historical facts.  Massachusetts — which never allowed slavery — introduced the 2nd Amendment.  Why did they do that?

One of the ways the British Empire oppressed its subjects was a monopoly on violence.  Soldiers, being agents of the King, could bear arms; citizens could not.  The Founders realized that a country needed soldiers to defend itself — especially the US of A, which was under attack from Britain until 1812.

In order to prevent the US from forming a Samurai class, they made it a Constitutional provision that all citizens were allowed to keep and bear arms.  Therefore, the soldiers could keep and bear arms not because they were soldiers, but because they were citizens.

If you look at the Third Amendment in this context, you can see why they enumerated that right as well.

The Second Amendment says that the army is a civilian organization, answerable to the people and comprised of the people.  Do you have a problem with that?

by The People.Without weapons to fight with you bow your knee to whoever rules so If you want a nation that bow's on knees to "whoever" rules then take the 2nd Amendment away.

COST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ENOUGH ELECTIONS?

Now you're trying to sink Obama as well.

Go join Nader's presidential campaign.

If he'll have you.

I can't begin to ennumerate them.

This is the Founders' guarantee that future generations would have the ability to make any potential governmental tyranny think twice about imposing dictatorship.  Period.  Angry Mouse is absolutely correct, and any lessor reading of the 2nd is an acquiescence to either bitter cynicism or boneheaded idealism.  

If a people cannot, even symbolically, protect themselves from the tyranny of the state, then the vote which you prize so highly is yours by fiat, not by right.  

Don't be a fool.

Are there any others?  Your argument (I think) is that we have so many laws on the books that are totally inconsistent and contrary that the Second Amendment is pointless.

How about the First Amendment?  I mean, consider how many laws we have restricting the First Amendment.  Copyright laws alone.  So, does that make the First Amendment obsolete?

Oh, and P.S.  "Gun nuts" is a bigoted, prejudiced, offensive term.  Liberals -- the same people who pride themselves on their tolerance and political correctiness -- should really stop using that term.  It makes them look like hypocrites.

First of all, it's absolute nonsense to suggest that the 2nd Amendment came about from the desire to put down slave rebellions.  I've never seen any evidence to support that assertion, and I doubt that any exists.  If anything, the founders were motivated first and foremost by a desire to check the power of the government.

Secondly, the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is a preamble, not a qualifier.  The people who interpret that section of the amendment as a qualifier are using the same stilted logic that right-wingers use to parse away other freedoms, like those enshrined in the 1st Amendment ("freedom of speech, not expression" and "freedom of religion, not from religion" are examples of this logic).

And many gun rights proponents, like myself, believe that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that stems from the right to self-defense, and would stand up for that right regardless of what the Constitution or any other law says.  Just like we would for a woman's right to choose, or the broader right to privacy.