The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to maintain a Militia, not gun ownership

This is a bit of tangent, but I agree that a guerrilla force can do damage, but it really depends because modern armies tend to fall prey to guerrilla warfare when they are attempting to minimize collateral damage , both human life and property. If a modern army had no concern for such things, they could just demolish everything if need be, kill all civilians, bomb strategic sites of the insurgency and cut off their sources of electricity, food and water thereby stopping any resistance in its tracks. Granted this would probably entail quite a bit of human suffering and is an unlikely scenario . Armed militias composed of civilians armed with only firearms (pistols, rifles) would be no match. Our dependence on computers and our lack of self-sufficiency with regards to food and fuel make us as a whole particularly vulnerable to strategic strikes. For instance, a foreign power that could bomb the major transit of the Midwest (highways and railways) could cripple our country's ability to feed its citizens. Without our own air defenses, we would be powerless The US Armed forces suffered embarrassing losses in Vietnam and in the occupation period of Iraq/Afghanistan because we were trying to achieve political goals, not wipe out their peoples and cultures. back to my main point: My point about possible existing laws circumventing or undermining the 2nd amendment was to proved that gun rights were standing on shaky ground. If the 2nd Amendment couldn't protect arms type X then it can't guarantee protection of arms type Y. My logic on that was fairly simple. There was an Assault Weapon ban for many years and I would argue that if such were still the case than my argument would be irrefutable and clearly no weapon would be safe under the 2nd Amendment. During that time of the Assault Weapons ban the 2nd Amendment was temporarily castrated. So war planes, helicopters and tanks are legal to possess, Now the opposite extreme of arms: it is interesting that states are allowed to ban items such as brass knuckles, knives of specific type, swords, extendable batons, and other weapons that are highly suitable to self-defense (in many cases non-lethal), They are banned under the idea that they are "dangerous weapons" . I believe that New York, California, and Massachusetts are especially strict on carry and concealed carry of these items. Obviously you don't want to bring a knife to a gun fight (unless you are really good with a knife), but arms are still being banned. From a literal interpretation, the 2nd Amendment is being violated and undermined in such cases. Now one might say that knifes, swords, brass knuckles and the like don't fall under the 2nd Amendment because they are not relevant to the security of a free state, which might emphasize the militia aspect of the law. Perhaps some Think tanks out there concluded that all the gun-owning citizens of the United States would band together in a time of crisis and be a useful force as opposed to total chaos ensuing. If so, they have more faith in the American public than I do, haha. Gun rights is an interesting subject to me as I see why both sides argue what they do. Many fear the slippery slope of regulation and I was under the assumption that that slippery slope already existed. Perhaps it does Regardless, it's been an enjoyable exploration of this topic knife laws by state, http://thefiringline.com... extendable baton laws: http://www.my-self-defense.com...