[lostapathy]

Have you read the Supreme Court's interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means and it's historical context, as laid out in the Heller and McDonald decisions?

It's reasonably accessible reading (if long) but complete debunks your statement.

[e12e]

I hadn't. But I notice that in the most recent (2008) decision four out of nine justices seem to agree with my interpretation; so "completely debunks" seem a bit strong.

You are of course right that in light of the ruling; personal defence is part of the current constitution - I was referring to the original intent - of which we may only speculate - and I'd say it's not entirely clear that the current law is not based on twisting the words of the constitution to be in line with the gun lobby. I was making more of a moral/theoretical argument; not a direct legislative one wrt the US of today.