To me it is absolutely clear what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. In the Declaration of Independence speaking about the ordinary citizen we read:
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or personal protection against criminals. The 2nd Amendment is about citizens having the means to protect themselves from their own government, if need be.
Militia is defined in Federal law as:
Well regulated has nothing to do with the government regulating who can carry what firearms and where. Well regulated means:
Well regulated in the 2nd Amendment means that all members of the militia are trained and guided to accomplish the same common goal, in this case to protect the freedom of the state. The last phrase in the 2nd Amendment ensures that the ordinary citizen should always have the arms available to them to accomplish the goal,
Clearly government restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms goes 100% against the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment - to ensure that the citizen has the ability to protect themselves and the freedom of the state from that government if the need arises. As such I am completely against the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and all the government restrictions that have been enacted since then. Here's the question that I personally struggle with, though.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by a group of men who had just seen the overthrow of their government by force because they had the same arms available to them as their government did. Internally, I struggle with the idea of Joe Citizen being able to go to the sporting goods section at Wal Mart and buying hand grenades and bombs to put on his Cessna. I struggle with the idea of a billionaire putting together his own Manhattan Project and building himself a nuclear bomb. But, in reality, if we carried forward the purpose and intent that the 2nd Amendment was written with back then, wouldn't that be what it means today? Should there be a line drawn? If so, where should that line be drawn?
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or personal protection against criminals. The 2nd Amendment is about citizens having the means to protect themselves from their own government, if need be.
Militia is defined in Federal law as:
Well regulated has nothing to do with the government regulating who can carry what firearms and where. Well regulated means:
Well regulated in the 2nd Amendment means that all members of the militia are trained and guided to accomplish the same common goal, in this case to protect the freedom of the state. The last phrase in the 2nd Amendment ensures that the ordinary citizen should always have the arms available to them to accomplish the goal,
Clearly government restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms goes 100% against the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment - to ensure that the citizen has the ability to protect themselves and the freedom of the state from that government if the need arises. As such I am completely against the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and all the government restrictions that have been enacted since then. Here's the question that I personally struggle with, though.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by a group of men who had just seen the overthrow of their government by force because they had the same arms available to them as their government did. Internally, I struggle with the idea of Joe Citizen being able to go to the sporting goods section at Wal Mart and buying hand grenades and bombs to put on his Cessna. I struggle with the idea of a billionaire putting together his own Manhattan Project and building himself a nuclear bomb. But, in reality, if we carried forward the purpose and intent that the 2nd Amendment was written with back then, wouldn't that be what it means today? Should there be a line drawn? If so, where should that line be drawn?
