The Founders were genius in their care in writing the Constitution, and in particular to current events, the 2nd Amendment. To understand why we must first delve into the specificity of the words the chose to use. We must also start with the Preamble.

"We the People".....this is where "People" is established as "Us." The civilian population at large.

"Of the United States".....not the people of other nations of the world.

"Establish justice".....setting laws and rules for society.

"Insure domestic tranquility".....keep the peace. This is where enforcement of the established justice, is provided for, but specifically, domestic. Not peace for other countries. Note the word "Insure."

"Provide for the common defense".....provide is specifically stated to be done. Common, as opposed to individual, defense.

"Promote the general welfare".....this is a particular pet peeve of mine. Promote, means to advance the idea, create the conditions whereby something can exist. But it does not mean impose an individual's or group's idea of what's best on everyone else. General, is also a carefully chosen word, that applies to the public, not the individual. Welfare, indicates wellbeing. Since they are promote the general wellbeing, they obviously did not mean guaranteeing anyone perfect health or happiness.

"And secure the blessings of liberty".....keep our freedoms protected. This part seems largely lost in recent decades.

"To ourselves and our posterity".....referring to themselves and their heirs and citizens to come.

"Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This Constitution, not the bastardization that will be attempted later.

Now how does all this tie together, and where does the 2nd Amendment fit in? The founders were just as careful in their choice of words with this Amendment and how to protect, and support it. This is my single greatest point of contention with those who tend to argue with me on this subject.

"A well regulated militia," The comma here is to establish the subject of the idea within the sentence.

"Being necessary to the security of a free State." This is the acknowledgment that a militia is necessary to secure the country. Nothing more, nothing less.

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This established a right, for "Us," remember the people reference in the Preamble? To keep, posess, and bear, use to defend. Arms, another point of contention that yields the most absurd arguments ever, weapons.

The argument I make, is counter to years of gerrymandering allowances of infringement. From local to the US Supreme Court, people have tried to split the baby, and make the snowflakes happy while trying not to step on gun owners rights. They fail at every turn because they read in what is not there.

We get ridiculous statements about the right to own nuclear weapons. Yes to read it as it was written and meant, you should have the right to own a nuclear weapon. And the liberals all gasp!!!

First, let's find someone that has one to sell. Then let's see how you pay for it. They certainly are not cheap. Then the last part gets a little sticky. Remember that part of the preamble about providing for the common defense. Yes, well when you've managed to acquire such a weapon, and you should have every right to, you may now find yourself equally a threat to the common defense, because those particular kind or arms, are area of effect weapons, bringing "common defense" into play. And thusly why I find it an absurd argument.

Having the right to keep and bear arms, does not mean you will not be killed by others exercising their right at the point you become the threat. The type of arms you have therefore and as written, should have no restrictions as have been placed. The free market and the common defense will regulate the more destructive weapons all on their own.

The states and local governments have passed a plethora of laws, that should not be allowed to stand either as the law is written. Regardless what court ruling or whose opinion you want to bring up, they are playing politics with a simply written law.

The 10th Amendment protects, or was supposed to, and did until ignored, the 2nd Amendment. You see the 2nd Amendment is specifically delegated to the United States. It's no longer open for debate. Unfortunately the 10th Amendment has become the most ignored Amendment. The government has become quite comfortable with over reach of its duties. Most people see Federal law as out ranking State law. They don't realize, this is only the case of those limited laws confined to the US Constitution. Beyond that State law supersedes federal law due to the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution was really so well written that most subsequent laws are redundant and clarifying at best. Think about it. Murder and theft, were already covered. You can't be deprived of life, limb or property without due process of the law.

If we could get more people to read the Constitution as it is plainly written. We could then see much more clearly, where the country has gone awry. And then, we would be sheep following corrupt shepherds, to slaughter.

Just a common man's view