"..the right of the people to keep and bear arms.."

What is the difference between a "Muslim fanatic" who straps on an explosive laden vest and detonates himself in a crowded market and the All-American kid who walks into a mall or school and starts shooting people before killing himself? Are they not both equally hell-bent on taking out as many innocents as possibly along with themselves? Do they not both intend to send a message to the world that they are the oppressed?

Consider this...the suicide - homicide - bomber is much harder to stop once in progress. If he makes it to his destination undetected, in an instant his deed is done. However, a mall or school shooter's actions take time to carry out for maximum efficacy.

Enter the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Is it not possible, if the right to keep and bear arms is allowed to its fullest intentions, that legally armed citizens might mitigate the damage done by a shooter? Shouldn't that reason alone be worth enforcing our rights; if just one life is spared?

Imagine a Columbine, Virginia Tech, or an Omaha mall, where armed and empowered citizens have the choice to fight for their lives instead of running or cowering. Imagine friends and relatives who still grieve, that may not have to. Imagine a country where We The People decide our fates.