I don’t think the intention of the second ammendment was to unequivically allow everyone the ‘right’ to bear arms, but none the less that is how it is interpreted. The traditional American thought on this, which I suppose you must already know, is that if you have a gun you have protection from others with guns. Also there is the belief that in the case of corruption in government, ie Hitler, you can take up arms against that government. Which is why there are militia groups in the US who coincedentally feel that the government is corrupt… (is it? ) and therefore you can certainly take up arms now! As for individuals carrying guns, could it not be argued under the second ammendment that an individual is a militia with only one member? That is why the second ammendment is generally accepted as ‘an unequivical right to bear arms’.
Anyway, I think that the whole thing is a ploy by the gun lobbyists (sp?) ie the NRA. in the US to promote their cause. In Canada we have more stringent rules about guns and gun owners, everyone has to register their firearms and you cant walk about the streets carrying a gun, they are primarily used for hunting. This hasn’t resulted in any more government corruption than in the US. In fact I think the lower murder rate speaks for itself and a society where guns are commonplace does not breed trust, but mistrust.
Of course its too late for the US to change this now, it is far too engrained in people to rely on those weapons, besides that, if the government tried to take the guns that are already out there, they would have a war on their hands.