[Ryan]

I have a question for both sides of this argument:

Should the issue of citizens arming themselves be a black and white issue? ("The constitution says the right to bear arms...PERIOD")

...or is it an issue with gray areas?

I tend to believe that you can't argue this particular issue without arguing larger scale issues like the rights that are afforded to the government in the constitution. I believe it is fair to compare different rights to each other on a high level, but of course they are vastly different in the details. Realistically, though, it's all a balancing act that was created to essentially protect people from themselves and each other.

Should the government infringe upon our individual rights by protecting us from potentially (though not necessarily) dangerous situations?

I believe that is the greater issue here. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc... These are all instances where the government is intervening in the name of safety and security of its citizens. Was this type of intervention expected when the constitution was written?

I don't think we're ever going to solve this gun control debate without first solving the larger issue.