A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
What about sidearms? Pistols aren't necessary for a well regulated militia. And in civilian use, they are generally designed for concealment and killing people. Nothing is mentioned in the constitution about target shooting, either. In their day, dueling was what pistols were for, which is just a way to legally shoot each other with handguns.
I own a number of guns, mostly inherited, that i used as tools for specific purposes... but never had a use for a pistol as killing people was not on my list of things to do. Long guns are tools for legitimate hunting, and a shotgun for defense of a home is suitable for shredding someone.
Canada makes it very hard to own a concealable handgun, but the pendulum has swung back to allowing long guns on a reasonable basis. (their assault rifle ban makes sense... do people really need a spray of bullets for any legitimate purpose other than assaulting someone?) I can get on board with canada's rules... and the second amendment crowd here should be fine to have long guns, as the phallic significance is greater with a rifle than a pea shooter pistol.
If the wild-eyed douche bag in Tucson had been strolling across the Safeway parking lot with a deer rifle, i am sure that he either would have been stopped or at least the carnage would have been much less.
To me, guns are tools and i don't see any legitimate use for handguns other than for putting bullets into people. And i am a gun owner that still carries a .22 rifle behind the seat for dispatching road-hit animals on the desert and the marauding skunks under the garage that i do battle with on a regular basis.
AI
