Actually, vygramul, while you’re technically correct, only a vastly wealthy individual might actually own artillery at that time. Virtually all the cannon used in the Revolutionary War were used by the British.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, it was phrased as it was because the United States didn’t have a standing army, and had no provision for creating one. The notion was, if the landowners had weapons – even the single-shot light arms of the day that often misfired – the country could be roused to war more quickly.

Think of the 2nd Amendment as the equivalent of a draft of all able-bodied men into a standing militia whenever the politicians ordered it and you’re closer to the original intent than the idea that everyone could keep assault rifles for their own amusement. The guns weren’t for personal defense. They were the pledge that the landowners were part of the US Army.

Possibly because confiscating all the weapons from the population, and then rearming them would be a waste of energy? Or conceivably because trying to disarm a population that had just fought a revolution might have been unwise?

Or perhaps because no one at that time realized that civilians would have access to weapons that would allow a single individual to wipe out a small town with relative ease?

If the second amendment hadn’t been written, any individual state could have disarmed its population, regardless of article 1. No one wanted to tell the hunters to turn in their fowling pieces, and no one wanted to try to tax the populous to arm an army.

Everything has context. That’s why evil, cruel, stupid, mean-spirited liberals call the Constitution a “living document”.

Being simple-minded, I think almost everyone should be able to own hunting weapons and home protection type weapons, as desired. However, most folks shouldn’t have automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear weapons. Of course, that’s just me, YMMV… 8)

I agree that we’ve wandered away from the question of whether an armed society is a good idea or not.

Now I certainly think that I should have a gun if I want one, as I am level-headed and calm. I’m just not sure you should be allowed to carry a gun, since you might be too hair-triggered. Of course, I realize that from your point of view, our opinions of who should have guns might well be reversed – right?

That’s my problem with arming everyone. If it was knives – no problem, since most random strangers won’t get hurt during a knife fight. If it’s single-shot flintlocks – sure, since by the time yours is loaded I’ll have had time to either draw my flintlock or run away. Since ‘arms’ now include laser scopes, automatic magazines, and armor piercing rounds (at least to extremists), maybe none of us should be carrying arms in public.

Hunting weapons? Sure – everyone except the demonstrably insane can have them. And have to learn basic gun safety rules, like the NRA teaches in their classes. 🙂