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.
When the Bill of Rights was written the threat of a bear eating your transportation, or the people who previously lived here trying to get their land back was real and imminent. Not to mention invading Canadians.
But in 1791, gun technology was not advanced enough to allow any random troubled teen to wipe out a room full of children in seconds.
The Second Amendment left it up to future generations to define ‘arms’ and how to keep them ‘well regulated’.
So if we want to get fundamentalist about it, instead of applying common sense, are ‘arms’ anything a person can ‘bear’? Does this include a backpack bomb?
And should anyone who has not used it in a crime so far be allowed to carry a backpack bomb just in case? Like if they feel they need to defend their freedom? When the guy they voted for loses?
It seems arbitrary to me that there’s some sacred aura around guns that exempts gun owners and sellers from the normal level of responsibility we expect in all other areas of life.
But we recognize that bombs are a weapon of mass destruction that no law-abiding person has any reason or right to use. Even if you can bear this weapon or keep it.
I believe self defense is not only a right but an obligation. But rights bring responsibilities. If organizations like the NRA who resist accountability in their blind rush to promote guns ignore the harm that can be done by poorly regulated access to more and more lethal weapons, then they are part of the problem.
It is an act of enlightened self defense to stand up for sensible gun regulation.