What, in your opinion, was the spirit of the law when it was created?
What Was it truly intended for (in your opinion again)?
I know I'm jumping in here, but these are good questions to go along with the amendment at hand.
The whole point of this law was to make sure that the American public would be able to defend itself in case there was any kind of attack occurring. In order to understand this more easily, you need to look at the time period at which the law was created; the newly formed U.S had just fought a war with Great Britain and considering that the British were all around in the former colonies, the public needed a way to defend itself if need be. This mentality is completely different nowadays, since there really isn't a homefront threat anymore, unlike the 1700s.
For its true intentions, the spirit kind of falls hand in hand with it: the people needed to be able to defend themselves and come together to fight off a common enemy if they needed to. This was largely in reference to the British at the time, but since the nation was still growing and prospering, they needed to have an easy-to-use defense mechanism if they needed it, hence the 2nd Amendment.
In theory, the Amendment is a good idea: the people can be safe from their enemies. However, with no real outside threat justifying the necessity of a gun, I can see why people would want gun control laws. Guns nowadays can be seen as a bad thing since they are used for criminal activities, such as robberies and murders, as well as being very easy to obtain because of this amendment. In my personal opinion, there do need to be changes and added gun control, but only to people who are seen as criminals or mentally unfit to own a weapon so as to uplift the safety of innocent citizens.
I'm sorry if I got off on a tangent at the end with modern gun control conflicts, but here's a summary as it pertains to the Amendment itself and when it was written: the idea at the time was good and served a good purpose. However, times change and updates need to be made to accomodate these changes in society, hence the fights for gun control today.
Again, sorry about the tangent and if I wasn't supposed to talk about it.
No need to apologize, this is what I'm looking for anyway, a chance to discuss things.
I personally feel that the intent was to give the people the ability to protect their new liberties from govt. as guaranteed by the constition, from encroachment by governments foreign or domestic. I do see and understand the points you are making, you come to your conclusions from a place of personal reasoning and I can both understand and respect that even if I don't 100% agree.
You, and everyone, can feel free to go on any tangent related to the 2nd ammendment as you did!
Now, here is a more modern day (20th century) example of the need to keep the 2nd ammendment around! Read the story in the link or watch the video, it may or may not alter your view.
With all the debate about guns going on and the few threads I've seen pop up here I thought maybe you could all use some perspective on just what the 2nd ammendment is for.
ens (long read but well worth the knowledge)
(in the video the man who was shot in the back was not accurately portrayed, he was actually an African American man demanding to have the ballots counted in public and was punched with brass knuckles for it, when he ran for the door the sheriffs shot him in the back)
This is why we have a 2nd ammendment, to protect us from govt not to hunt or protect us from each other.
I'm just trying to say that when you create something i.e. a Tech 9, all it's for is killing another living thing. Mainly another human being. Not to hunt or for sport. Seriously, certain weapons shouldn't even be made.
I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. I have absolutely no problem with guns themselves when they're used for the correct reasons, e.g defense, hunting, or sports. However, when these weapons get abused because of how easy it is to acquire them, like criminal action, then I start to take a stand against them not because guns are completely bad, but just that there need to be restrictions on how they're used and that certain people (e.g criminals) aren't allowed to obtain them.
I'm also in the boat that says that assault weapons should be banned. Does one really need an AK-47 with a 30 round clip to kill a deer/other game? No, he does not. For hunting, he should be using a proper hunting rifle.
Basically, I'm fine with guns so long as they're used for the right reason.