"This is a very fundamental difference how anti-gunners view the 2nd Amendment and the nature of rights . They think of the Bill of Rights as a 'permission slip ' , the view the text as proof that the government gives us rights . The government does nothing of that sort , the Bill of Rights as a document declares that government is FORBIDEN to grab power over the issuses and rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights ."
"Well I replied to this same post a couple months ago , but I would like to respond with a new perspective I have on it now . Basically the basics of the US government is that it is to secure our rights and our safety , so that we do n't live in a state of anarchy , where the biggest strongest man wins . If a power is n't given to the government , they may not use it . The bill of rights is an even further prohibition of regulation . To make a law based on firearms or anything they have to have a reason for doing it , and the federal government may not be involved unless the Constitution grants them the right to ( it does n't mention guns in the powers it gives the US government ) . The 2nd amendment is restricting the government ( federal , states , and local governments ) from infringing upon that right . But the question still arises , what is meant by the mysterious militia clause ? There are many interpreations on this but I think the basic meaning of this is so that a similar thing could happen as did in the American revolution . But then an even bigger problem arises . If that purpose is to be left intact we need to allow the citizens to access the same weapons the government has . But I really do n't feel comfortable allowing citizens with atomic bombs and such . This is really a problem . Also , obviously if this were meant to be a tool for a revolution , would n't concealed weapons also be covered ? Again it seems that it is currently impossible to follow the intentions of the amendment . Many will use the quote `` Those that sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither `` , but this is a hollow argument . The whole purpose of government is that we give up some of our natural liberties ( the liberty to kill someone ) for personal safety and protection of our other rights ( the right to life ) . I agree you can not go too far , but where do we draw the line ? I do n't like the idea of an oppressive government owning all the weapons or do I want them available to the worst criminals , so that instead of handguns and regular bombs , they are using uzies and atomic bombs ? Do you have more trust in the government or in the general public ? That 's a hard question to answer because I do n't have much trust in either one , therefor I seem to be undecided on where to really draw the line . As you can see , my opinion on this matter has changed drastically over the past few months , mostly because of this site ( see , ideas really can change minds ) , so please do n't tell me how I 'm contradicting myself here ."
"The government does nothing of that sort , the Bill of Rights as a document declares that government is FORBIDEN to grab power over the issuses and rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights ."
"I seem to be undecided on where to really draw the line ."