[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.
(digs up link)
ah, here we go:
http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html
[/ QUOTE ]
A bunch of crap. His arguments are completely unconvincing (which is not to say his conclusion is wrong.) It's ironic that he states "In the context of the eighteenth century, 'well-regulated' did not mean 'subject to numerous regulations.'" since he took the whole militia reference out of context.
The wording of the constitution made sense in the context in which it was written, but not today. Which, again, does not mean citizens should not be allowed to carry guns. It just mean the original reasons are outdated.
A veiled attempt to imply that allowing Jews in WW II Germany-controlled Europe to own guns might have prevented the holocaust is outrageous.
By the way, Hitler's rise to power was by VOTE, not power. The Nazi party's first attempt at seizing power by force was a complete failer. The Nazi party obtained a 37% vote (which was very large given the fragmented nature of German politics at the time). The final "nail in the coffin" - the Enabling Act which essentially put Hitler into power as a dictator - was VOTED in (albeit after "eliminating" the Communist party by subterfuge.)