The wikipedia entry lists a disturbing long list of arguments concerning the amendment:

The modern Second Amendment debate centers on questions such as:

Who does the Amendment mean by "the People"?

Why does the Amendment protect the right to 'keep and bear arms', and not protect just the right to 'bear arms'?

Does "bear arms" or "keep and bear arms" mean the same now as it did in 1789?

Is there significance that the Amendment is constructed of two clauses?

Is there significance that the phrase "defense of himself/themselves and the State" was included in some State Constitutions at the time but not included in the Federal Second Amendment?

In addition, the debate often involves discussion focused on more precise details around the word "militia" from the first clause portion of the Second Amendment, such as:

Who or what does the Amendment mean by the "militia"?

What relationship does "militia" today have with "militia" in 1789?

* What is meant by "well regulated", relative to "militia"?

Does the mention of "militia" in the Second Amendment mean that maintaining viable militia is the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment?

It also often involves topics on differences in historical meanings and thoughts such as:

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?

It also expands to include discussions on the impact among states, such as:

Does the Amendment prohibit States from regulating arms?

Does the Amendment permit some States to deviate from interpretations of the Amendment as taken by other States?

The debate is not simple. The following provides more background and insight into the central questions previously identified.

What bothers me about what is essentially a textual exegesis, is that its a ridiculous way to discuss a social issue as important as whether citizens can carry instruments of deadly force without restriction anywhere, anytime. This should be a political rather than a legal discussion.

My inclination is to go with an individual right to bear arms, but I am cursed with the ability to see both sides of this issue. Its simply inarguable that guns can be a destabilizing social force.

<--I still get an overwhelming urge to body slam 1987 Park Avenues.

Perhaps 20 years ago now, I was traveling north on the I-69 through Indiana in my turbocharged Mazda 626 with digital dash (man, that was a sweet little car...). It was two lanes, and semi trucks were travelling slower in the right lane. A line of cars was conducting a conga line, passing these trucks and I was patiently keeping my place in that line.

In my rear view mirror, I see a big Park Avenue roaring up from behind, intent on passing everyone in one shot.

He failed.

He tried again.

He failed.

He tried a third time, and failed as well, but this time he came right into me forcing me on the shoulder and into the grassy median. I was fish-tailing in the grass, but somehow kept control and came back up onto the road and needless to say, I was pretty steamed. I slammed by pretty black car right into his side, putting a nice thick line of black paint on his driver-side door and front fender.

If I had had a gun at that moment--no question in my mind--I would surely have pumped him full of bullets.

It was a good thing then that I didn't have a gun, and largely as a result of that incident, I've never carried a firearm for anything excepting hunting and target shooting. I have friends who keep a pistol under their seats when they travel, but I keep thinking of that almost-dead accountant in his Park Avenue. I'll just keep the guns in the safe if its all the same to you.

On the other hand, I'm sure glad that off-duty Ogden police officer was carrying his weapon as he treated his wife to a Valentine's day dinner at Trolley Square in Salt Lake City.

That's the problem I have--how do we legislate keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people like myself, but allow responsible citizens to pack heat in the interests of public safety?

I strongly suspect we are going to see guns again as a major issue during the 2008 elections. Maybe this time we can tone down the rhetoric enough to establish some reasonable policy directions that serve everyone's interests.