Originally Posted by tjspiel

"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."

I think one argument may stem from the idea that "A well regulated Militia" is no longer necessary since we have a professional army with government supplied weapons to defend the states instead of relying on ordinary citizens defending the state using their own firearms. So if a well regulated militia is no longer necessary, does the rest of the 2nd Amendment apply?

Will we ever depend on ordinary citizens with their own firearms? I suppose you can't rule it out, but those would be some pretty desperate circumstances.

I'm currently reading a book called Founding Brothers about the major players in early U.S. history. People like Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc. It is amazing that the nation managed to hold together after the revolution. The civil war that eventually did happen was almost unavoidable. The same divisions still play themselves out today, namely, what role should government play?

Anyway having an armed populace was critical to getting the nation off the ground. They also saw gun ownership as a necessary part of protecting ones freedom from the dangers of an oppressive government.

The idea of owning a gun for reasons of personal safety I don't think had much to do with the 2nd amendment, though I doubt any of the founding fathers would have taken issue with it.

How much of this applies today? I'm not sure.