"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."
Until a new Amendment is passed to revoke this individual right, all arguments are invalid.
The 2nd Amendment forestalls many arguments about what the law IS. It does not forestall arguments about what the law SHOULD BE.
And it is important that we engage in a discussion about what the law ought to be. For instance, although courts do not (well, ought not) respond to public opinion, there is a public discussion going on now about the appropriateness of the government ordering Apple to rewrite their OS to allow the FBI to decrypt a phone. That discussion is healthy, and a good thing. As another example, I often engage with people in discussions of why freedom-of-expression (1st Amendment) is so important, and I am prepared to lay out the arguments for why it is a good law.
The 2nd Amendment ought to be treated the same way. Those who think it is good policy should be able, and willing, to lay out the reasons why it is a good law. And many of them do. I believe some of those reasons may be based on bad science (e.g. "It is good not to restrict gun ownership because greater gun ownership reduces crime."), and we can talk about that. Other gun rights supporters pass laws requiring that no federal money be spent on collecting data on gun-related risks (perhaps for fear that the results will not support their positions?). I object to that behavior, and I hope you would too.
The NRA created the gun lobby out of nothing at all.
EDIT: Found some links, it was 1977. here's one: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...
Or, are you limiting your interpretation to firearms in common use at the time of the Constitutional Convention? In which case, you can turn in your Glock and your AK.
Point being, we already have established restrictions on firearms. These restrictions have held up in court (for the most part).
Yes, of course. You'll need quite a bit of money to buy the second two and comply with safety regulations, though …
There is an argument that the 2nd Amendment only covers personal weapons, e.g. rifles, pistols, swords, knives, bazookas &c. I don't find it fully persuasive, but I don't really feel strongly enough about the issue to spend all my time arguing about whether nukes should be legal: I'm far more concerned about things like firearms, knife & sword bans.
Edit: s/too/two/
I can't think of any reason why someone couldn't own an aircraft carrier today, other than that they cost four billion dollars of course. You can own your own tank, as long as the weapons are nonfunctional and you just drive it on your own property.
Most of those are prohibitively expensive, but why not? Is your argument that somehow ordinary people will be more likely to use them indiscriminately?
I mean, who is the US government, which owns bazookas and air craft carriers, but a collection of ordinary people who have done their share of indiscriminate usage of weaponry?
I'm not anti-gun, in the general sense. I am pro-gun control in a much as the current system allows too many irresponsible people to own guns for no good reason (Jamie Gilt being a prime example).
Rifles and handguns sure are doing quite a number in the middle east and they worked in vietnam.
But, the fact that there is an NFA requirement proves my point - the 2A isn't absolute - there are restrictions placed on firearms.
In any case, IANAL but the US has not been crippled by absolutism in the pass. There are limits to free speech, for example (defamation, libel, fire!). Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional?
Those are limitations on the improper use of speech, not on merely possessing the means to communicate.
> Are you sure that stricter background checks would be found unconstitutional?
Found unconstitutional? I'm not at all sure of that, as the judicial system doesn't lend itself well to prediction.
Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt.
> Would they be unconstitutional? Yes, without a doubt.
I don't really think so. The State has the power to deprive citizens of their rights — to include their right to life — so long as it observes due process, so it has the ability to deny firearms ownership to e.g. felons (otherwise one would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to arms of prisoners …). I think that it can require sellers to check whether or not someone is permitted to receive an item before transferring it.
I just don't know that this is particularly effective. Honestly, weapons crime is not a problem of weapons: it's a problem of criminals.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The first half (the prefatory clause) needn't be ignored for the Second Amendment to apply to everyone - unless you're arguing for firearms restriction to apply only to women of all ages and men over age 45, but I doubt that's the case.