Roger 123 - when the Constitution was written, there was little difference between the weapons used for war and those used for hunting and personal defense. But the reason the amendment was adopted wasn't so that folks could go hunting, or even to provide for their own defense. The provision exists because the recent experience of the Founders was that an oppressive government had to be resisted by revolution and warfare. The government today could easily become far more oppressive than the one under which the colonists suffered. It doesn't want us to have assault rifles because those weapons make it a fairer fight if we were ever at war with that government. If it were not for that threat, why does anyone need such weapons?
Steve of CA wrote: Personally I do not own a gun and would not feel safer if I had one, but I do not have a problem with law abiding people buying guns. That being the case, I have to ask of Mr. Ransom and others here, what controls, if any, do you favor over the purchase and use of weapons, including semi-automatic weapons such as the one used by the killer in Aurora? Or do you think we have too much gun control with the laws we have now? - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns
Dear Steve,...
Your assertion that "when the Constitution was written, there was little difference between the weapons used for war and those used for hunting and personal defense" is also at least partially incorrect. Under the 2nd amendment people were allowed to own cannon, among other things. Not much use for cannon in hunting. See my post where I quote George Washington on this subject.