SR> If a city wishes to, they can even outlaw firearms within their city 
 SR> limits. It has been done, and is Constitutional!  
   Sure has - and look how well it acocmplishes something - a raising of the 
assault rate, of the homicide rate, and of the weapons crime rate - BECAUSE 
the iscreants are more certain that they'll get no argument from the law-
abiding, who have bee deprived of the means of defense.
 SR> I'm surprised I did not hear this BEFORE my Senior year in college :)
   Whoever told it to you there was engaged in doublethink and misdirection 
as 
the supreme court has yet to rule on the second amendment as a body - various 
members have had opinions quoted (mostly out of context, to support whatever 
someone wanted supported) one way or another, but no ruling hs been issued.
   It might also interest you to know that the militia, at the time of the 
writing of that amendment, was not the national guard - it was EVERYONE - and 
that principal has not changed.  The populace constituted an unorganized 
militia - and was expectedn when called, to show up to defend the nation with 
supplies and weapons. No legislation has yet altered the sense of the time of 
the writing, and no reasonable argument as to its being invalid for these 
times has yet received the weight of a court ruling.
   As a matter of fact, most places that have liberalized the concealed carry 
arrangements have seen a downturn in crime, not the upturn that the 
hysterical 
folks that fear guns want you to believe will occur.  A gun is, in and of 
itself neither benevolent nor malevolent - it simply exists.  it is the uses 
to which it is put that cause its identification to be benevolent or 
malevolent - and the criminal is no respector of laws about carrying, laws 
about owning, laws about registering, or any OTHER laws that most of the rest 
of us try to honor.
   What your professor was feeding you was sanitized politically correct pap, 
designed to mislead you into being willing to give up yet another of your 
rights, in favor of The Better Person Who Knows What Is Good For You - which 
(obviously) you don't know (in the opinion of that better person - usually an 
academic who has never lived in the Real World.)  There are folks that ge off 
on money, and folks that get off on power - and a subset of the latter gets 
off specifically on the power to make people do things they don't want to do. 
Almost without exception, the greatest membership of this last group is 
social 
engineers, legislators, and folks who would otherwise have no effect on your 
life.  Don't let them mislead you.
   The constitution doesn't guarantee a right to main with a vehicle - but we 
kill lots more folks with our cars than we do with our guns - do you see a 
movement to prohibit car ownership?
   Something is not making sense here.
--- AdeptXBBS v1.11z (FREEWare/2)
---------------