Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[Chesspiece_face]

When we are discussing the safety of our society, we shouldn't be so quick to move to the "But we have to be able to defend ourselves from the government!" That should be the very last thing on our minds, but even in the United States, it is seemingly the first thing we jump to. And if it isn't the first thing we jump to, it's certainly on a very short list of things that we leap at to defend our right to own weaponry that John Q. Public has no idea how to use properly or effectively.

I need to jump in and comment on this because, to me, it betrays a strong undercurrent to the entire discussion that is often ignored or overlooked.

The Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights states:
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.

Now, the NRA and other Pro-Gun supporters love to quote the second half of the Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But completely overlook the entirety of the first section. The section that explicitly states WHY the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed. And there are two very important issues within the WHY. First being that a "Militia" (for the purpose of this discussion we can be vague on what this really means) is necessary for the security of a free State. This, unlike how we choose to define "Militia", is not vague. The purpose of any Militia is to serve in the security of the State. Thus, the reason we, as Americans have the right to own weaponry is to aid in the defense of the State. Second and equally important is the descriptors used in relation to "Militia": Well Regulated. By definition the Second Amendment allows the Government the right of oversight on what qualifies as "Militia" and how it deems fit to regulate said "Militia". Unarguably the right to bare arms is not absolute and we could easily paraphrase the Second Amendment as: IF you are abiding by the regulations put forth by the Government AND you are not acting contrary to the security of the State THEN you have the right to bare arms.

*State in this case can also be debated as to meaning, but I think it is unarguable that it would mean the entirety of the community of peoples including their duly elected officials*

This then brings us to the point debated by Bolty and Kandrathe. Where do we draw the line, and who defines "need" for a certain weapon. I don't think the Second Amendment is vague in that it, in fact, proscribes the Government with the power to define "need" but lets move away from any legalistic definition and address this from the Pro-Gun lexicon. Guns are tools. They serve a specific purpose, and are only as good as the individual wielding them. If I were attempting to fasten a bolt and opted to use a hammer to pound it in it would be entirely counter-productive and most likely have lots of negative repercussions. That's not what a hammer is for.

What then is the purpose of this Tool? What is the purpose of an extended clip that can hold double or triple the ammunition of a normal clip? The purpose of these tools is to send as much ordinance down range, causing the most amount of damage possible, in the shortest amount of time. What viable use does the population have for these tools if not to undermine the very security of the State that they are meant to protect? Whether the security at risk is the lives of 20 children at a school or the lives of police or other first responders dealing with overtly anti-government individuals. What use do these tools have for the populace other than "Because I feel like it"? And when do we draw the line and say "Your right to 'Because I feel like it' no longer trumps the security of our State"?