Originally Posted by MrFatbooty

So again, here is the full text of the second amendment:

"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."

Let's look at this gramatically. While it's technically one sentence, the first portion says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The second half of the amendment says that in order to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia, the people should be allowed to bear arms.

Similar to my views on the applicability of religious texts to assorted issues (i.e. I'm a religious guy but it doesn't bug me so much that evolution and creationism don't jive), I feel that the Constitution was written to make sense at a specific point in time and needs to be interpreted such that it can remain applicable to the current situation.

The amendment says that a requirement for the security of a free state is a well regulated militia. In the year 2004 we have a well regulated militia, and it's called the National Guard. The population of our country is large enough such that not every single able-bodied man needs to be armed to the teeth to make sure the British (or if you're a Republican, that evil too-big federal government) don't try anything sneaky. So in my mind, really there is no constitutional need for regular civilians that are not in the National Guard to have any sort of armaments.

People can bring up stuff like home defense, personal security, whatever, but none of that is in the second amendment so none of it is a protected right. The security of a free state will not crumble if people get robbed due to lack of a home arsenal, because we have a magical concept called insurance whereby if you suffer loss or damage to your property you are able to obtain fiscal compensation.

And no, despite a bunch of antiquated conspiracy theories, the federal government is not going to roll into your town, city, county or state, take it over, and remove all remnants of sovereignty of that particular jurisdiction. So that justification doesn't hold water either.