[KrisKrinkle]

Any comments on what "power or privilege" "one is justly entitled" to in regard to bearing arms?

I am not interested in the "nuclear backpack" question.

I am interested in the "reasonable restrictions" question.

Some say there are no "reasonable restrictions." If there are no "reasonable restrictions," then the likes of Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber would be permitted to bear the arms of their choice while at the defense table during their trials. After all, they are innocent until proven guilty.

Somehow, I don't think that would work out well in regard to insuring domestic Tranquility, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty for the People of the United States and our Posterity.

It could be argued that keeping the likes of those mentioned from bearing arms in the circumstance given is a reasonable restriction. If so, the basis for the restriction must lie in the answere to the question: what exactly is covered by "the power or privelege to which one is justly entitled" in regard to the bearing of arms?

[TERMINATTOR]

You have it backwards. Powers and privileges are granted to, or revoked from, government by the people. We the people have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. There is no such thing as "resonable restrictions" on rights. The governments PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms may be restricted, or revoked, by the people. The government is the servent, the people are the masters, NOT the other way around.

Defendants and prosecuters should be seated in front of hay bails to prevent richocets should the judge, jury, and spectators decide to open fire simultaniously. Dangerous criminals like Manson should be executed, or kept in prison.