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
The 2nd Amendment serves as a check and balance to government power. The founders didn't trust the government and sought to provide a means of fighting tyranny. Contrary to popular belief, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self defense. Again, this is an important distinction. If we give into the argument that it was for hunting, then there is no reason to prohibit the government from selecting which guns we can have. If it's about self defense, they can push us to other means.
The ultimate purpose is to act as a check and balance to government power. This means that we shouldn't tolerate government setting the rules of purchase or possession. When we cross that line, we completely defeat the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
So the next time someone talks about "reasonable regulations", understand that it's not reasonable for government to set the rules of purchase. Ask them if they would be ok with a background check to own a computer or car because those items are used in murders. Ask them if we should have to beg permission from the government for every post we display online so they can make sure that we're not violating any laws when we engage in free speech.
Law abiding citizens without firearms
Breaking it down
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....
In order for a country to be free, those with power must be kept in check. To me, the reference to a well regulated militia refers to the militia being armed as the preferred method to keep the federal government in check.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Referring back to the first statement, the second is the solution to the risk identified in the first. If the people are armed, they have a way to resist a tyrannical government. Effectively, if the military stages a coup and removes the elected leaders, the citizens of this country can resist because they have the means to resist. Without the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the government cannot be held in check should they decide to go off the deep end.
The Arguments against the 2nd
Q. Why do you need that AR15
A. What business is it of yours what I own? If I'm not committing a crime with that AR15, why do you even care? Your irrational fear of an AR15, a firearm used in far less than 1% of the murders in this country is no reason to restrict my access to that firearm. We don't have a bill of needs, we have a bill of rights.
Q. Shouldn't we do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
A. Of course we should, up to the point of where you infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen to achieve that. You don't get to throw me in prison to stop the rapist down the street, so you don't get to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights to stop the thug down the street. The far better solution is to keep violent felons behind bars as long as possible. Focus on the guilty and stop doing millions and millions of background checks to catch the extremely low number of felons that will actually submit to a background check.
Have a question you would like my response to? Email me at email@example.com.