Interesting that the things people are the most passionate about are the things that drive the most polarized debates. More interesting still that so many people get more emotional over guns than religion, sex, or free speech.

Guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children is OK; sex not so much, except when it's violent. Really--how many TV shows have good, clean sex and how many have sex as rape or violation of some sort? We go haywire over a costume malfunction, but don't think twice about blood and guts all over the place. Whacky.

So now what, you wanna take away everyone's machete?

IMO,

We have to take the time to consider the (era) of when the 2nd amendment was written.

They simply had no ideal about Bushmasters + Wackos at that time. I am sure if they did there would have been some inclusions.

It goes beyond that, carp. In 1800 there was no standing army--that's something of an over-simplification, but it bears an essential truth: the early US was very very wary of any standing army precisely because of the experiences with the British standing army that led to the Revolutionary War in the first place. Essentially the only continuously marshaled land-based armed forces were the militia.

The militia were organized and regulated by the states and ultimately, per Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, by the federal government. Here's the full clause, which states that the federal Congress has the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." To my mind that clause in Article 1 is essential to understanding the 2nd amendment, which begins, as the NRA refuses to acknowledge fully, with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. . . ."

What is a well-regulated militia in the context of 1800? Article 1 defines what it means. A militia is not a group of individuals or anything like it. It's equivalent to our current National Guard. A militia is therefore not a bulwark against federal encroachment on the citizen, but rather to be used by the federal and state governments as a means of defense against enemies foreign and domestic. I would bet a heck of a lot of money that in the phrase "enemies domestic" would be included all the so-called militias running around waving their bushmasters on private preserves all around the country. Those people might think of themselves as the last bastion of true constitutional freedom, but they're not. They're exactly what the 2nd amendment is supposed to guard against.

Gun ownership "shall not be infringed," according to the 2nd amendment, because the federal and state authorities must have access to a well-regulated militia. Nowadays the whole issue is silly precisely because we have these little things called the Army, the Marines, the Air Force.

ALSO - There was NO Standing Army... hence people could form militias. But the NRA doesn't mention that !!

There was a need then - people needed guns to put food on the table- protect against Indians and others that might harm them... there wasn't a police force, no National Guard, as said No Armed Forces ... people lived miles apart - they had to be self reliant.. today most don't need them (I didn't say all). Not like then !!

It wasn't "the people" who formed the militias. It was the federal Congress, franchising the appointment of the officers to the states. West Point becomes a training facility for officers in 1802, so I suspect that the officers appointed by the states tended to come from the officers trained by the federal government. The "people" are the reservoir from which the ranks of the government-established and -regulated militia are filled, and their right to bear arms is closely associated with their status as that reservoir.

Well lets not only mention the constant (Indian wars) and the Spanish American wars and the French American wars.

So yes this country was built on conflict - so the 2nd amendment made sense at the time.

Today = NO , , well not like it was 300 years ago.

Protecting the "western" border was the job of the only standing army battalion left as an organized unit after the Revolutionary War. That group, finally called the "Legion of the United States," was comprised of about 5000 soldiers and officers in battalions that included infantry, riflemen, dragoons (cavalry), and artillery. It was disbanded in 1796, and was replaced by separately organized brigades of the four types of land troops. Everything else was handled by the "well regulated militia." The War of 1812 proved (a) that the army could function effectively, (b) that militias were not enough to protect against enemies foreign, (c) that there weren't nearly enough army troops, and finally (d) that the US had better get itself more regular army soldiers if it was going to succeed in dealing with enemies foreign. So by 1815 the feds reorganized and expanded the standing army, used mostly in the many Indian Wars from 1815 onwards. The militia therefore declined in importance because the standing army replaced its function, and continued to be relatively unimportant until after the Spanish American War, when the Militia Act of 1903 established the National Guard. The National Guard, then, is the direct descendant of the "well regulated militia" that the 2nd amendment refers to.