"Should ordinary people be allowed to own guns?"
Should ordinary people have freedom of speech?
Should ordinary people have the right to own their own property?
Should ordinary people have the right to have children?
Should ordinary people have freedom of religion?
Should women have the right to drive?
Should people have the right to read what the want?
Should people have the right to breath?
Should people have the right to think?
I think so!

I'm shocked! Shocked!

Yes, Paul is trolling. S/he has posted here under many names.

Pachyderminator, you wrote, "Watch out, Paul, responding to a rebuttal by saying "That's just your interpretation of my post" without explaining whether or how the interpretation is wrong is a mark of a troll."
Again, you're speaking of your interpretation. When I told you, "You speak of 'Paul's error' and 'sit back and let it happen', but you're speaking of your own interpretation", I was not telling you that your interpretation is "wrong" or right. I was reminding you whose it is. Whatever you interpret my posts as saying, whatever "error", "philosophy", etc. you allege to be mine, whatever it is you claim to "rebut" is yours, your interpretation. And I needn't tell you that, because after all, it's your interpretation. You said as much yourself: "My interpretation... was that [...], and my rebuttal was directed toward this interpretation." Yes, your rebuttal was directed toward your interpretation. So why should I say that your interpretation is wrong or right? You're already rebutting it. I remind you whose it is.
You asked, "what purpose did your original post have? Please don't respond with a meaningless rhetorical question."
Is it past tense? Is it not yours? Do you believe these are "meaningless rhetorical questions"? Rather than "a" question, how about several?
You wrote, "You'll notice that Jesus used the "question answer" technique as a way to open discussion, not as a way to avoid defending his statements when challenged."
You may notice that the discussion is as open as you are, no less and no more. If you choose to continue challenging / rebutting your interpretation, that's your choice. It is permissible.
You wrote, "because Jesus always did what was right, discussing what Jesus 'would have done' is merely a rhetorical technique for discussing what is morally right".
If "Jesus always did what was right," we can discuss what Jesus in fact did and say that was right. But that doesn't mean what Jesus didn't do is right, and that includes what Jesus "would have done" which is always what he didn't do. Thus, discussing what Jesus "would have done" is discussing what didn't happen but as if it did, i.e. discussing fantasy. John 2 does not actually say that Jesus struck anyone. But one could use a rhetorical device involving a fantasy combat Jesus rich in fantasy detail not found in John 2. And one could use a rhetorical device involving a fantasy Jesus chatting with the animals like Dr. Doolittle complete with a stylish whip and special affection for doves.
You asked, "Are you or are you not in disagreement with the Church's teaching that it is permissible to use deadly force if necessary to defend one's own life?"
There's that word "permissible" again. In Paul's words, perhaps quoting some Corinthians, "Everything is permissible for me". Or if you prefer another translation, "Everything is lawful for me". Even the words "if necessary" make it a rather rhetorical question. After all, who is blameworthy/culpable for what is "necessary"?

"You speak of "Paul's error" and "sit back and let it happen", but you're speaking of your own interpretation."
Watch out, Paul, responding to a rebuttal by saying "That's just your interpretation of my post" without explaining whether or how the interpretation is wrong is a mark of a troll. It was one of Terry's favorite games. (In fact, his style was rather similar to yours...hmmm...)
My interpretation of your post was that you were arguing that the gospel never says Jesus struck anyone in support of a philosophy of peaceful nonviolence, and my rebuttal was directed toward this interpretation. If my interpretation was wrong, please correct me and suggest a better one. If you cannot do so, what purpose did your original post have? Please don't respond with a meaningless rhetorical question. You'll notice that Jesus used the "question answer" technique as a way to open discussion, not as a way to avoid defending his statements when challenged.
"I've already expressly disclaimed that sort of "would have" pseudo-logic game in my post to Pachyderminator."
Your disclaimer is itself pseudo-logic, and here's why: because Jesus always did what was right, discussing what Jesus "would have done" is merely a rhetorical technique for discussing what is morally right. Thus saying that Jesus "would have" struck the money-lenders with a whip simply means that violence (in this case nonlethal) is sometimes justified, and saying that he would not have means that it is not. I know you haven't explicitly made the latter statement, but you seem to be going to great lengths to avoid being caught in any definite statement. (Just like Terry did...hmmm...)
I think we'll get on better if you make one now. Are you or are you not in disagreement with the Church's teaching that it is permissible to use deadly force if necessary to defend one's own life? If so, please say on what grounds. (The verses you cite in your reply are of little relevance. Yes, Jesus told us not to worry about food, but he didn't tell us not to eat, and the same principle applies to the life of the body.) If not, we in fact do not have anything to argue about, other than which of us is more fatuous. And while that question is very interesting, I don't think it would be productive to try to hash it out here and now.

Bill, you wrote, "you conflated the permissive will of God in general... with Christ permitting his disciples to carry swords."
No, I didn't conflate them. Did you conflate them by your interpretation? I pointed out that in the English language and Church teaching the word "permitted" is used in the "permissive" sense.
You also wrote, "By that logic, had the disciples also chosen to bring concubines, Christ would have allowed it despite its giving scandal... Games over."
I've already expressly disclaimed that sort of "would have" pseudo-logic game in my post to Pachyderminator. Had the disciples in fact brought concubines, or ridden unicorns, or whatever, it "would" indeed be that Jesus "permitted" / "allowed" it. It would be a different story altogether. As it is, Jesus "permitted" Simon Peter, as rash as he may have been, to carry a sword, and for him to lop the man's ear off.
You speak of Pachyderminator providing "the Catholic answer", but there is no answer when there is no question.
As to your self-defense from muggers explanation, it's not very convincing. For example, you say "the disciples are not shown being privy to that power", but the disciples are also not shown being mugged, whether before or after they acquired two swords. And you cite Jesus escaping a crowd as if it demonstrates a miracle, but the story is more vague (five words: "he escaped from their hands/grasp/power") rather than "inexplicable" and not convincing that the escape was any more "miraculous" than escapes that happen every day. Many people are quite skilled at it.

Paul
You are indulging in numerous scriptural metaphor games knowing full well that one would need an hour to answer all of them. And then you'd still escape with more verbiage. Thus in my case, you conflated the permissive will of God in general... with Christ permitting his disciples to carry swords. By that logic, had the disciples also chosen to bring concubines, Christ would have allowed it despite its giving scandal. Thus the swords were either scandalous or rightly carried and they were rightly carried. Games over.
Pach..etc. provides the Catholic answer easily by cutting to the chase and to the catechism.
Christ didn't need a sword Himself in everyday life because John 10:39 shows Him escaping those who would stone/arrest Him by passing through their hands inexplicably...ie miraculously.
The disciples are not shown being privy to that power. Hence they rightly carried swords for self defense from the type of muggers who appear in the story of the good samaritan.
Pach...etc. I agree with you on self defense; read my other posts.

And he makes my point for me.

Jesus was asked, "Are you the King of the Jews?", and Jesus replied, "Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?"
Jesus was asked, "Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things?", and Jesus replied, "I shall ask you a question. Tell me, was John's baptism of heavenly or of human origin?"
Jesus was asked, "Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?", and Jesus replied, "Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?"
Jesus was asked, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?", and Jesus replied, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
Jesus was asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?", and Jesus replied, "What did Moses command you?"

"Did Jesus have a point to his whip?" When they answer a simple question with a question instead of an answer, you know they don't have a point. Or a rational answer.

Pachyderminator, you wrote, "This is completely fatuous. Driving someone away with a whip means either striking him or threatening to do so... I don't see how you can claim that he would not have struck anyone while remaining faithful to the text."
Yes, your response is, in part, "completely fatuous".
First, I did not "claim that he would not have struck anyone", nor did I claim he would have struck anyone. I made no claim either way. What I said is that John 2 "does not actually say that Jesus or the whip struck any person, not even an animal."
I will say that "he would not have struck anyone" under the specific actual circumstances *IF* in fact he did not strike anyone under the specific actual circumstances. In other words, what he "would" have done in that situation is no more or less than what he in fact did do in that situation, whatever that may be.
Second, John 2 also does not actually say that Jesus threatened anyone. If it's your opinion that "driving someone away with a whip means either striking him or threatening to do so," then that is your opinion, but opinions differ. Some opine that the whip in John 2 was not an instrument but an emblem, a sign of authority and judgment. If someone feels threatened in the circumstance of Jesus holding a whip (or of a policeman holding a gun), that does not necessitate that Jesus (or the policeman) is threatening anyone. Rather, the person may feel threatened by his own fear, distrust, guilty conscience, etc. One who fears is not yet perfect in love. Whose fault is that?
You speak of "Paul's error" and "sit back and let it happen", but you're speaking of your own interpretation. Jesus said, "I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do... I tell you, do not worry about your life... or about your body... Can any of you by worrying add a moment to your lifespan?" And Jesus said, "Come to me... and I will give you rest." Is that "sit back and let it happen"?
Jesus said, "store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be." Is that "sit back and let it happen"?
Paul said, "Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus." Is that "sit back and let it happen"?
And Paul said, "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
Is that "sit back and let it happen"?

Paul:
"What comes as a shock to many people is that while John 2 reports that Jesus made a whip and drove them all from the temple [area], it does not actually say that Jesus or the whip struck any person, not even an animal."
This is completely fatuous. Driving someone away with a whip means either striking him or threatening to do so. If all the merchants and money-changers left immediately and without resisting, it is possible that Jesus didn't actually strike anybody. But I don't see how you can claim that he would not have struck anyone while remaining faithful to the text.
By the way, here is a quotation from the Catechism that is much more relevant than the one you present (CCC 2263-2264):
The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not.
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

bill bannon:
"In context, Peter was going against one of the requirements of a just war: that it stands a sane chance of success."
How do you get this from the context? The context is Jesus saying: "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" If Jesus had called on twelve legions of angels, would that not have stood a sane chance of success? Paul's error is in overlooking the fact that while the scriptures (and therefore God's plan) being fulfilled required Jesus' death, it does not require that everyone who is unwillingly entertaining a robber, murderer, or rapist sit back and let it happen.

In my house there are 3 handguns, one shotgun, one inoperable, heirloom 1830s muzzleloader, one broadsword, two longbows, and an atlatl. There is also an assortment of rock and mineral specimens used as bookends, etc., that could make a definite dent, if flung, in a human cranium. Nonetheless, in the gravest extreme, it would be the operable firearms I would choose, while waiting for the Highway Patrol and/or the County Sheriff to take their 40 minutes to find my house.

Did Jesus have a point to his whip? Some say that would have made it a scorpion, as when Rehoboam threatened: "My father beat you with whips, but I will beat you with scorpions."

Point?

"which would have come as a shock to the buyers and sellers, whom He whipped out of the temple."
What comes as a shock to many people is that while John 2 reports that Jesus made a whip and drove them all from the temple [area], it does not actually say that Jesus or the whip struck any person, not even an animal.
"Jesus permitted..."
Jesus permits good and evil. The Church teaches that God "permits [moral evil] becaue he respects the freedom of his creatures" (CCC#311).
"...that is did not stop his men from carrying swords".
And Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
Jesus concealed from no one that to follow him involves sacrifice, sometimes also the supreme sacrifice. He said to his disciples, "If any one would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake will save it."

Andy
Great post. Jesus permitted...that is did not stop his men from carrying swords since if a person were mugged prior to modern medicine, one could be disabled and thus be a beggar for life due to badly set broken bones inter alia. Hence swords continued in European civilization while the best of Euro culture was being built or painted. And so the modern Euro claim of greater civilization of some posters is actually inappropo since even great French cuisine (postdating the great art but predating modernity by centuries) had its beginnings while men still protected themselves and executed murderers. The best of what one sees or eats in Europe then was created largely prior to modern times and at a time when just violence was little questioned.
Christ chided Peter in the garden of Gethsemane to put his sword away because the reality was that Peter was "living by the sword" in the sense of seeing violence as the solution at all times. In context, Peter was going against one of the requirements of a just war: that it stands a sane chance of success. Peter with 11 other men plus Christ was simply near provoking an eventual massacre of those with him by not observing that requirement.

Having spent 10 years as a 911 dispatcher, I carry my firearm whenever I am out of the house, as does my wife, a juvenile case worker. Pie in the sky fantasizing about the good in human nature is all well and good, until you have to handle the hot call for a home invasion. 22 year old female is home alone, guy smashes in her front door. She hides in the closet and calls 911. I have officers enroute, when I hear the closet door open, and she screams. He beat her senseless with a chair leg and was gone before the officers arrived 2 minutes later. Two minutes. Most people can hold their breath for that long. Next to a couple of suicides, that was the single worst call of my career.
Where we live currently, the response time for a sheriff's unit is 20+ minutes... on a good night. The Remington 870 stays in the rack by our door and the Sig stays on the night stand.
Tell that 22 year old how much safer she was calling 911 and how much better off she was not having the means to defend herself (she lived in public housing... no "legal" guns allowed). When seconds matter, the police are just minutes away. As to the wiseguy who asked "What would Jesus shoot?" well, I thought it was common knowledge that it would be a Sig P226R with a Surefire 400 tactical light/laser with a Walther PK380 for backup.

Hank
In NJ, police warned me that I must feel my life is in danger to use my short shotgun on an intruder. "Refusal to leave" might not suffice and here is why. I suspect they see many cases of wandering mentally ill who wander into an open door unarmed and are not really there to rob or kill. So one must have compassion as first if possible with them.
But even with the mentally ill one must be careful and not presume harmlessness if (as you note) they "advance" toward you. There was the case in Jersey City 2 years ago of a Merrill Lynch manager (murdered in broad daylight and leaving a wife and 3 children) who was stabbed repeatedly by a mentally ill man on the light train station platform after work with no provocation whatsoever. Ghetto residents from his own area chased him down and held him for police. But mentally ill people can vary greatly as to violence.
In one's house and faced with one, dialing 911 would probably work in most cases while he is there.
Locking doors at all times is best in all US big cities and our doors are never unlocked...(and all our windows have individual alarms). And I periodically pray that I see no more violence in my life having seen too much when younger. But if a thug enters and triggers a window during the night and keeps coming in after that, he'll lose because I'll be on the floor like a rug and no thug expects that and I'll throw a flash light to his area...and a river will run through him...3" shells...awful power... and their sound like an actual explosion will chase anyone with him. Gun ranges don't like you practicing with them on crowded days...they are so loud and they swell up your hand.

James,
What you describe here is pretty much the way the law is today. I do think that the courts have generally ruled that breaking into an occupied home indicates an intent to harm. Homeowners do not have to wait until some of their blood is on the ground to defend themselves. Refusal to leave and continued advancement would normally be adequate legal grounds for shooting.

I came across an interesting thing during my reading a month or two ago. I read that the English, during colonial times in America, had a much more defensive understanding and legal obligations for people using guns. You could be prosecuted, for example, if you had a chance to escape a robbery by using a gun but did not do so. In other words, unless the criminal/attacker continued to attack you, your moral/legal obligation was to exit the situation without actually firing. I would assume now that we have police that holding him until the police came would be acceptable. Now, obviously a million scenarios could complicate things and muddy the water, but I like the emphasis of using a gun without necessarily shooting -- unless one absolutely has to. That means that I am not necessarily morally justified to shoot an intruder just becasue he breaks into my home...although I may. This fits with my moral philosophy: intruder and defensive gun users are responsible for the actions and choices...even ones they didn't have to make. What did Clint say, "It'a terrible thing, killing a man."

What would Jesus do?
Check what he said in Luke 22:36
[Jesus] said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."

"The reason I spoke about Western countries is that minimises factors such as poverty and educational standards etc which are often used as excuses for high crime rates."
You admit they are excuses and not reasons but still you expect us to swallow that it's just a handy coincidence that it allows you to call the USA the worst?
Incidentially, give us a definition of "western" that if applied across the board will give USA the worst.

"I give thanks that the country I live in severley restricts guns for everyone - barbarians and the curently civilized ,"
HAHAHA!!!!
You live in a country which severely restricts guns for the currently civilized. The barbarians ignore your laws.

The above bit of wit assumes that it is never permissible to defend yourself, contrary to the teaching of the Church; that Jesus was a pacifist, Who would never use force of any kind, which would have come as a shock to the buyers and sellers, whom He whipped out of the temple.

What would Jesus shoot?

"...and believes all citizens should have free health care."
If you believe that ANYTHING in this world is "free", I have a bridge to sell you.

"...I give thanks that the country I live in severly(sic) restricts guns for everyone..."
Probably one of the criminals thankful that he doesn't have to worry much about his victims being able to defend themselves against him.

Maybe, someday, we'll live in a civilized society. Until then, we'll have to deal with the barbarians in our midst.
I'm sorry you live in a country where so many barbarians have guns, I give thanks that the country I live in severley restricts guns for everyone - barbarians and the curently civilized , and believes all citizens should have free healthcare

The chances of defending oneself against the imminent use of deadly force is much greater in the United States. Atleast, in those parts of the United States that allow its law-abiding citizens to legally carry handguns.

"Then we could cut straight to the point and point out that in fact the USA is about in the middle in homicide statistics, and the countries with the highest rates also have draconian gun control laws so it's not the lack of such laws that's the problem.
Then we all get to sneer at your "western" modifier, which is as bad as your "gun deaths" statistics. Why not cut the bait-and-switch arguments?"
The reason I spoke about Western countries is that minimises factors such as poverty and educational standards etc which are often used as excuses for high crime rates.
If you would like to "sneer" at my comment go ahead because calm reasoned debate does not seem to be your forte. And yes, I will again point out that America's gun death rate is alarming. The chances of being murdered, mainly by a gun, is approximately five times higher in the United States than it is in my country.

Beadgirl, it is not a "fact", it is simply a fact.
"...there may very well be counties with strict laws and high homicide rates..."
Not in the U.S.

"BTW, in the United States, the highest homicide rates are in those counties which have the most restrictive gun control laws, while the lowest homicide rates are in those counties which have the least restrictive gun control laws. (See, for example, John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime")."
This "fact" keeps coming up in discussions about gun control, but it is simply not true. Or rather, there may very well be counties with strict laws and high homicide rates, but there are plenty where the opposite is true. For example, NYC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and Mayor Bloomberg has made enforcement of those laws one of his causes, and yet the homicide rate in NYC is at a historic low (as are other crime rates). In other words, strict gun control laws, whether they are in and of themselves a good idea, do not cause an increase in homicide or crime in general.

"In other words your homicide rate is notably higher than other western countries and is mainly due to gun deaths. "
Then you should have said so in the first place.
Then we could cut straight to the point and point out that in fact the USA is about in the middle in homicide statistics, and the countries with the highest rates also have draconian gun control laws so it's not the lack of such laws that's the problem.
Then we all get to sneer at your "western" modifier, which is as bad as your "gun deaths" statistics. Why not cut the bait-and-switch arguments?

bill912 said:
"And how many of those deaths are from legally owned guns?"
You have repeated your comment in case we didn't see it.
I don't disagree that many of the deaths may be from illegally obtained guns.
However, that does not alter the point I'm trying to make. I believe that America has so many guns that they are easily obtained and too easily used in crimes. The American homicide rate (per hundred thousand) is notably higher than my county's rate and I can't help thinking the wide availability of guns is a major cause.

"And how many of those deaths are from legally owned guns?"

Mary said:
"Oh horrors of horrors!
It's so much more pleasant to die of being stabbed, or strangled, or beaten to death with a baseball bat than to be shot.
What sort of person hypes up a difference in "gun deaths" as if other deaths were somehow not so fatal?"
Mary,
Your comment about "what sort of person...etc" completely ignored my total statement.
I said:
"Your gun death rate (per thousand of population) is far higher than ours. Certainly we now have more and more knife attacks in my country, but a person can't kill as many people in a given time with a knife as they can with a gun.
If you look at cold, hard statistics, the homicide rate in the United States is far too high when compared to other Western countries and most if this comes from gun deaths.."
In other words your homicide rate is notably higher than other western countries and is mainly due to gun deaths. Obviously I do not think being murdered by other means is any less terrible. It is just, as I said, easier to kill more people with a gun.
By the way could you not get personal next time? Your comment " What sort of person ...etc" was unecessary. I take ALL deaths very seriously and do not regard one type as being less serious than another.

But correlation is not causation. Are the high homicide rates a result of restrictive gun laws, or are the restrictive gun laws a reaction to high homicide rates?
Definitely the former because the crime rates follow the laws. Look at England, where a century ago you had complete gun freedom and a much lower rate of murder.
Heck, Washington DC is seeing a crime decline with the estimated number of lawful guns in the city being in the hundreds.

Your gun death rate (per thousand of population) is far higher than ours.
Oh horrors of horrors!
It's so much more pleasant to die of being stabbed, or strangled, or beaten to death with a baseball bat than to be shot.
What sort of person hypes up a difference in "gun deaths" as if other deaths were somehow not so fatal?

Over the past 25 years, many states made it easier for law-abiding citizens to get carry permits. All of them saw their homicide rates drop. All of them saw their violent crime rates drop (see Lott's book). Now, either the knowledge that their intended victims might be armed scared the criminals into changing their behavior, or it's one heckuva coincidence.

Two crack addicts enter a basement window and with a history of rape and two victims in the hospital with internal injuries from a week ago see a women making tea in her kitchen at 3am. They surprise her and one suspect tells the other lets make this one a "saw movie". The husband hears the conversation and takes his Glock model 20 and as he enters the kitchen his wife was already disrobed and the suspects both had large kitchen knifes in there hands. One suspect holds the wife and the second one say to his buddy kill the B***. Being a Recon Marine for over 8 years the husband shoots the suspect holding his wife in the head and does a double tap to the other suspect (One to the head,One to the heart) THIS IS NOT A MOVIE - IT WAS REAL. Semper Fi, Do or Die.

"In the United States, the highest homicide rates are in those counties which have the most restrictive gun control laws, while the lowest homicide rates are in those counties which have the least restrictive gun control laws."
But correlation is not causation. Are the high homicide rates a result of restrictive gun laws, or are the restrictive gun laws a reaction to high homicide rates?

BTW, in the United States, the highest homicide rates are in those counties which have the most restrictive gun control laws, while the lowest homicide rates are in those counties which have the least restrictive gun control laws. (See, for example, John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime").

And how many of those deaths are from legally owned guns?

I have read the arguments from Americans as to why they must defend the right to bear arms. I can say that I have a lot of sympathy for those arguments and I do worry that in my own country only the criminals are ending up with guns.
However, I, like most non-Americans still feel that there are far too many guns, especially high powered guns, in the United States and that far too many people are being killed by them every year.
Your gun death rate (per thousand of population) is far higher than ours. Certainly we now have more and more knife attacks in my country, but a person can't kill as many people in a given time with a knife as they can with a gun.
If you look at cold, hard statistics, the homicide rate in the United States is far too high when compared to other Western countries and most if this comes from gun deaths. So while the right to bear arms sounds fine in theory, in practice a lot of people are dying.

The Colonists were armed with "state of the art" arms. They had the same type of weapons as the British. (Many considered themselves British.) These weapons included firearms, pistols, muskets.
The first 9 amendments pertain to individual rights. There aren't any group rights listed. The 10th list that those not covered by the Constitution are held by the States.
This right is to fight off oppressive Government not to hunt or protection from thieves. We need similar weapons as the soldiers just as the Colonists were similarily armed as the British soldiers. That means automatic weapons, body armor, clips, etc.

Mary: I'm not sure what you point is. At the time of the Constituion, _all_ oceanic merchant ships were armed. Today, that would cost too much, particularly in insurance, so they aren't. Though the waters of the Red Sea are getting shipping and insurance companies to reconsider. The reason is the same: to fend off amateur navies.

Note this: Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
That means that the Constitution thinks that a private citizen can build a ship of war and sail it off.

Let's remember that Elias who will return just prior to Christ's return was a prophet who killed 450 prophets of Baal in I Kings 18:40 by slitting their throats: "Elijah had them brought down to the brook Kishon and there he slit their throats."
None of your softie saints will return prior to Christ "on that terrible and great day"...Elias will.
Shotguns for home defense kill better and lose lethality better as to multiple wall penetration and harming nearby houses and people. Miss with a 50 caliber Taurus revolver and you'll hit an innocent in Duluth even though you live in Maine..:)...hyperbole to make a point. Ironic. I have a pistol grip shotgun in case someone breaks in and one shot is the equivalent of a burst of multiple uzi fire. The reason you kill is because as long as a bad person can move their trigger finger, you or a loved one stand a chance of being killed or paralyzed for life by his 9mm (probably) and therefore if paralyzed, you will be fighting bedsores for the next decades of your life...which sores can also kill. It is the perps time to face God. Don't bring in the "maybe he'll repent" song and dance. It's his time because the situation says it is. unless you are from Vox Nova. They can't help it. You don't discuss...those of you who are female....you shoot to kill if he is moving toward you or if he is stationary and holding a gun. Discuss and you are dead. Watch Lifetime for Women network on cable....a woman is always discussing as the perp moves closer to her to aikido the gun off her.
No movement allowed; no pistol holding allowed; no discussions allowed. It's his time.
Think real Vatican. Swiss Guard have Heckler and Koch MP5A3's....on sale in the in the wind market, they are 13K each (retail 15K) and the intent of those submachine guns is not to wound. Their intent is the particular judgement since it is the attacker's time.
Think real Vatican...not Civilta Catolica editorials.

P.S. The "right to bear arms" always reminds me of a "get fuzzy" comic, in which (IIRC) the naive dog is upset that others have a right to the arms of bears. ;-D