- Messages
- 9,533
- Reactions
- 5,069
The Second Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting. It wasn't even about self-defense against rogue criminals. It was about maintaining an armed populace capable of resisting government tyranny -- most specifically federal tyranny. Remember this was a time when people trusted their states, but were wary of a national government. Hence the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" language. The problem being addressed by the British when they marched on Lexington and Concord was that there were cannon there capable of challenging the firepower of British hegemony. That was in the minds of the Framers when they crafted the Second Amendment and was a recent memory for those who supported the Second Amendment's adoption.
If the feds have certain arms, I believe the 2A guarantees "the people" the right to have sufficient and equivalent arms to resist the feds. I know that's uncomfortable for the modern world with the incredible firepower of the federal government, which is new. But those changes in circumstances are why the Constitution also provides for an amendment process. If people want to limit the people to arms only of a certain type and lethality, let's have a constitutional amendment process started. This incremental ceding of firepower to a central government authority is, in my judgment, inconsistent with the intent of the Framers.
[Disclaimer for anyone monitoring internet posts: I am in full compliance with federal law with respect to firearms do not support unlawful attempts to change, violate, or circumvent current law].
This is my exact opinion. I would like to buy you a beer sometime and shoot the breeze. BTW my ancestors fought that day and one died on Lexington Green, April 19th, 1775 after firing on the redcoats