I've been doing some thinking, how to put this into words... so I will try here.
As a part of the Bill of Rights, the 2A is first of all, a statement on the limitation of the federal government, ie, the government, the State if you will, shall not infringe on this already-existing right. It is NOT, as the left likes to say, a right that the government gives to the people. The BoR consistently proscribes (ie, forbids) certain government actions, towards rights that the framers constantly maintained were already God-given.
Because it states this right is "of the People" this stands in contrast to "rights" or powers granted to the federal government, or to the individual states. This right is possessed by individuals.
And as to the "arms" for me personally, the most natural and original terms leads me to conclude that it pertains to keeping and bearing those types of arms that a private individual/citizen-soldier could and should be able to commonly bring to a militia-like assembly if and when called upon to do so. For whatever rightful purpose that such a call-up is rightfully justified in handling. The clearest similarity that demonstrates this concept is that of the colonial "minutemen", who could muster up their rifle, pistol and ammo and be out the door ready to fight at a minute's notice. I don't think it supports a right to personally own M1A1 tanks, or F-18 fighters, or rocket launchers, and am doubtful that it supports much more than some automatic weapons... I think some automatic weapons could be allowed under some sort of registration as done today. I'll say more about that in a minute.
Typical infantry-like weapons were what the framers had in mind IMO, ala the "minutemen" above. And certainly there is a precedent for some auto's in "today's" infantry in that WWII had some soldiers carrying Thompsons... but not all of them did. that being said I do think the primary intent was to enable ownership of specifically "AR-style" weapons since that is the weapon most similar to standard issue rifle of today (and I personally don't believe that auto fire is so essential in general, so I exclude it for the most part), that is, a militia-like call-up of "minutemen" would expect that individual soldiers would show up with more or less common infantry weaponry. So, that plus a 9mm/45 cal of similar semi-auto pistol. Plus the ammo that they would use.
The 2A was not written to "allow" hunting "purposes." it was written to limit what the govt could do in regards to the people's right to keep and bear, with the idea in mind that a "militia-like" call-up might be necessary for a locality or a region. Self-defense is doubtless included in that "call-up" feature.
And finally, by "bearing," this necessarily goes beyond simple possession of said weapon in the home. Bearing means to carry about. I do think that "bearing" in some cases might not be good policy or might not be right for all locations, but in general some sort of carry in public cannot be totally forbidden.
The key to regulating any potential violence with weapons, as the key is with any type of violence, is rightful prompt restraint and prosecution, and Defense against if need be, perpetrators of said wrongs.
I think this covers pretty much what I believe it to be.
I guess I would say in closing that a People Who are fearless in exercising their BoR rights, speech, assembly, religion, keep/bear arms, etc., and fearless in defending those rights, are pretty much unconquerable and are the essential-fear of/ existential threat to, any tyrant or foreign (or domestic) totalitarian power who would desire to overtake them.
As a part of the Bill of Rights, the 2A is first of all, a statement on the limitation of the federal government, ie, the government, the State if you will, shall not infringe on this already-existing right. It is NOT, as the left likes to say, a right that the government gives to the people. The BoR consistently proscribes (ie, forbids) certain government actions, towards rights that the framers constantly maintained were already God-given.
Because it states this right is "of the People" this stands in contrast to "rights" or powers granted to the federal government, or to the individual states. This right is possessed by individuals.
And as to the "arms" for me personally, the most natural and original terms leads me to conclude that it pertains to keeping and bearing those types of arms that a private individual/citizen-soldier could and should be able to commonly bring to a militia-like assembly if and when called upon to do so. For whatever rightful purpose that such a call-up is rightfully justified in handling. The clearest similarity that demonstrates this concept is that of the colonial "minutemen", who could muster up their rifle, pistol and ammo and be out the door ready to fight at a minute's notice. I don't think it supports a right to personally own M1A1 tanks, or F-18 fighters, or rocket launchers, and am doubtful that it supports much more than some automatic weapons... I think some automatic weapons could be allowed under some sort of registration as done today. I'll say more about that in a minute.
Typical infantry-like weapons were what the framers had in mind IMO, ala the "minutemen" above. And certainly there is a precedent for some auto's in "today's" infantry in that WWII had some soldiers carrying Thompsons... but not all of them did. that being said I do think the primary intent was to enable ownership of specifically "AR-style" weapons since that is the weapon most similar to standard issue rifle of today (and I personally don't believe that auto fire is so essential in general, so I exclude it for the most part), that is, a militia-like call-up of "minutemen" would expect that individual soldiers would show up with more or less common infantry weaponry. So, that plus a 9mm/45 cal of similar semi-auto pistol. Plus the ammo that they would use.
The 2A was not written to "allow" hunting "purposes." it was written to limit what the govt could do in regards to the people's right to keep and bear, with the idea in mind that a "militia-like" call-up might be necessary for a locality or a region. Self-defense is doubtless included in that "call-up" feature.
And finally, by "bearing," this necessarily goes beyond simple possession of said weapon in the home. Bearing means to carry about. I do think that "bearing" in some cases might not be good policy or might not be right for all locations, but in general some sort of carry in public cannot be totally forbidden.
The key to regulating any potential violence with weapons, as the key is with any type of violence, is rightful prompt restraint and prosecution, and Defense against if need be, perpetrators of said wrongs.
I think this covers pretty much what I believe it to be.
I guess I would say in closing that a People Who are fearless in exercising their BoR rights, speech, assembly, religion, keep/bear arms, etc., and fearless in defending those rights, are pretty much unconquerable and are the essential-fear of/ existential threat to, any tyrant or foreign (or domestic) totalitarian power who would desire to overtake them.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"