Here's my thoughts on the second amendment.
1. The second amendment starts "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". While the meaning of "well regulated" and "militia" can be debated endlessly, the fact that the words are present cannot be debated. Why are they there? Gun advocates claim that they are meant to be expository rather than limiting - in other words explaining the justification or need for the second amendment rather than limiting its scope. I don't buy that. The founding fathers did not seem to think that any of the other rights required exposition,so it is unlikely they would have added it to the second amendment just because. The US Constitution is terse and concise. The authors were not given to frilly wording. While we can't know exactly what the intentions of the founding fathers were, it is obvious they did not believe that the right to gun ownership should be universal and unlimited.
2. The word "militia" has been endlessly debated. While it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, it is mentioned three times in section eight. In each of the three times "militia" is mentioned, the context is unmistakable: militia is something that is organized and controlled by the government. Gun advocates claim that if you take the body of evidence (all the writings of the era), "militia" is used to describe any male of age who is able to fight. Although popular, it is debatable (George Washington found militiamen worse than useless until the colonies started properly outfitting and training them).
3. Gun advocates claim that the founding fathers intended for citizens to be armed in the case that they needed to overthrow the government. I find this argument the most ridiculous of all. If the founding fathers had intended for there to be an escape mechanism from the United States, they'd have simply written one into the Constitution. In fact, the Constitutional convention was hastened along because the fledgling Federal government wanted the ability to squash uprisings like the then current whiskey rebellion. They certainly did not want armed citizens to overthrow the government.
4. Much is made of the 1886 US Supreme Court ruling that gun ownership is an individual right, and following rulings. It pays to keep in mind that the US Supreme court has also upheld bans on mixed race marriages. Supreme Court rulings are not immutable gospel and are subject to change.
This thread has gone 122 pages of interesting conversation and debate without getting locked. Please, please, let's keep this civil.
