You have to consider the time in which this was written. Back then firearms were slow-loaded, single shot weapons. The Founders didn't foresee there would be semi-automatic handguns with 15 round magazines, or high-powered assault rifles with a 30 round clip and high fire rate.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is so that citzens in this country can arm themselves in the event of a tyrannical takeover, and to ensure that the government is indeed fearful of its citzens. You also have to remember the context of their words. Back then, our Continental Army was made of plenty of civilians, so the idea is that in an emergency, the common man would have the ability to band together and protect the country if need be.
It also allowed for sportsman and regular citizens alike to arm their homesteads to defend against threats.
You're also over looking a key part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
WE the people are this proverbial militia. You, me, and everyone else are counted upon to safeguard the country in an emergency, and that's why it's important that upstanding, able-bodied and clear-thinking individuals should be allowed to legally own firearms.
Back when the Soviets invaded Finland, the first thing they tried to do was make every citizen in the country turn in their weapons as soon as they occupied the country. I am not some patriotic whackjob, but you have to understand the power that a weapon wields.
If you deny law-abiding citzens the right to defend themselves, you're instead arming a horde of criminals and violent sociopaths. These people WILL get guns no matter what, so making it harder on people like myself to defend ourselves is just illogical.
I own a firearm for the sole purpose of home defense, and regardless of how other's choose to misuse them, I do not think people like me should be subject to over-reactive punitive measures such as the ones you're suggesting.
Educate em Omar'. He seems to have missed a lesson in history class.. Or maybe its that he didn't extract true understanding from the information he can regurgitate.
I been reading the past couple posts and you really need to step down. I don't talk about things I know nothing about, neither should you.
Omar, you got some things right but you got a couple things wrong about his history. First thing, each state/colony had their own mini militia that were trained soldiers. It was these soldiers that formed the Continental Army along with a couple citizens-turned-soldiers.
Second, the Bill of Rights was really only created to persuade the states/Anti-Federalist to to agree to the formation of the United States and the Constitution. This means that the 2nd Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was really only created as a pulling factor. The right to bear arms was just a perk of being a part of the Union, basically.
Third, there are many debates about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. But here's the truth. When the constitution says "Well regulated militia" yes, they do mean the citizens... kinda. A militia was kinda what the Continental Army was. Militia =/= Any Citizen. A Militia is a body of Citizens enrolled for military service during state of emergency. Note the word "military."
Militia are different from professional soldiers, but they are not the same as citizens. A militia is organized, supported and led by a leader. This does not mean any citizen can go out, purchase a firearm, and say they are a part of a militia. Of course, the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted very loosely which is why these days, anyone can purchase a firearm.
Lastly, yea you are correct that the Founding Fathers didn't foresee the advancement of technology with machine guns, etc. Then don't you think that the 2nd Amendment should be taken more seriously? Now that firearms are even more deadly, I believe the government should really regulate gun laws.
I smell what you're saying about a militia but really it comes down to semantics, same with the 2nd amendment. Who made up the continental army? Think about it. Most of those men were not trained soldiers, sure they were technically "soldiers" but these were literally regular citizens for the most part that volunteered.
And as far as to the motive behind why they added it to the Bill of Rights it doesn't matter, the English have recognized for centuries before the colonies the importance of a well-armed populace to deter a tyrannical government and to make sure citizens could defend themselves against invaders. Sure, there was certainly a motive for the Federalists to concede and appease their counterparts, but you have to go back deeper in history. The notion of a "right to bear arms" is something that predates the colonies and revolutionary war altogether.
By the letter of the law these were commissioned infantryman, but these were green, untrained, inexperienced men for the most part with little training. People love to bring up the militia line to detract the rest of the statement but as you concede, the amendment is extremely vague and open to interpretation, but regardless, it's irrelevant.
Rather than debating semantics, however, I'd rather talk about the issue at hand.
Of course, I'm for regulating guns, but "regulate" is a vague term. I think there needs to be more thorough background checks, but it seems as if people want guns completely banned. The latter is not going to solve the problem. People are ignoring that the majority of the people committing crimes like these are suffering mental illnesses and rather than focusing on how we can identify warning signs earlier on, thinking of better ways of helping these kids rather than over medicating them, etc., people want to try and "fix" the problem overnight by banning guns.
So instead of a kid killing his classmates with a handgun he took from his dad's closet, he's going to kill someone with a gun he bought illegally from a "gun dealer."
The reality is nobody gives a fuck about anyone else until shit happens. Right now, there's probably thousands of kids all over the country right now with the same mental issues this kid had and noone they're continuing to be ignored. Right now the anti-gun lobbies and gun lobbies alike are going to be clawing at each other's throats over an irrelevant issue instead of working out a plan to fix this problem in the long term.
If this was some utopian dream world where we could magically snap our fingers and remove guns altogether, sure I'm all for it, but that's impossible. There's always going to be some psycho with access to weaponry and rather than castrating people who have a right to defend themselves, I say we focus on the real issues at hand which is treating people with mental disorders and working out a plan that enhances responsible gun ownership rather than crippling it.
We need better gun education, we need mandatory safety courses, and we need to increase awareness. Our society is so enamored with violence but ironically most of the people living here have probably never fired a gun in their life or know how to properly handle one outside of Call of Duty.