Going back to what rb8941 stated in his post:
The government also has an obligation to protect its citizens.
I'm wondering where you came up with this concept? "The government" is not only
not capable of protecting its citizens, that was never the intent of those who founded our government, nor is that a function of government.
Another notes:
Some of you people are living under the misapprehension that you still live in a free republic.
Well, it's all relative I suppose. While I don't hold high hopes for the direction this country, in most respects, is headed, you can't sum up our situation with a pithy little comment or an attempt at irony ...
We're doing better than most. Recently had occasion to speak with a relative in Venezuela, where the esteemed Mr. Chavez is working hard to take guns away from every citizen (of a once-proud country with a strong tradition of gun ownership).
I'll take our system over
any other country in the world right now. Can we do better? Of course. But this question:
What part of "shall not be infringed" is open to interpretation?
has been debated in this forum ad nauseum, since day one ... just more preaching to the choir --
we all get it -- so don't ask us. And the whole turning up the heat and boiling the frog analogy? I grow weary of that as well.
We would do well to examine the points that
Correia stated so well. If you can't see the progress that has been made over the past 15 or 20 years on the front of citizen carry of concealed handguns -- nationwide --, you've not been paying attention.