Protect the American People from its Government Takeover (Gun Laws)

Now, towards the point. "The thought that the government is trying to remove the second amendment is a gross misinterpretation of government reactions on the recent shooting tragedies. Such thinking can be likened to those NRA spoon-fed crazy conspiracy theorists who believe that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax. " *First of all, Please note that I am not affiliated with the NRA or any group like that. Thank you for branding me as such. I will try to not pass any judgment on you, as I know nothing about you. I do not believe Sandy Hook was a hoax. Again, thank you for putting that notion out there. Nor will I try to label any of your thoughts as the thoughts linked to any 3rd party group. As far as a "Gross Misinterpretation", please give me YOUR interpretation. MY interpretation is this. A regulated militia (an organized group of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers ) being necessary to the security of a free state (being necessary to the protection of a free state), the right of the people (the RIGHT of the Citizens of the United States of America) to keep and bear arms (to own the same weaponry as our military including ammunition), shall not be infringed (shall not be taken away, in any form). Militia has no ties to government. Who would a free state need to be protected from other than government? Arms at this time referred to all general weaponry that was not specified to be anything LESS than what the military was to have. And Shall not be infringed, well that should speak for itself. 1) If you disagree with any of my interpretation, please explain. "The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, however, like with all amendments, the second amendment is not omnipotent like gun advocates such as the NRA believe" 2) *Again, I am not the NRA, they are not the subject of debate, and their beliefs have nothing to do with this. Obviously you have a problem with them, and should focus your ill feelings towards them in a different debate. Also, please clarify how something could be a "RIGHT" (typically spoken as God given) but not be omnipotent. What exactly were you trying to express? I do not believe YOUR NRA that you like to reference is against taking that Right away from your examples 1 thru 9. 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " 3) *The list in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be manipulated to deny or discredit others retained by the people. Care to elaborate? "The second amendment states a basic right like that of the other first 8 amendments. " 4) *However, it is the ONLY one hat happens to state a PURPOSE. Do yo agree? " In addition, nothing in the text under the interpretation of the 9th amendment does the US constitution state, refer to, or imply that the second amendment is the defender of the US constitution. " 5) *To "Imply" is a matter of translation, and shouldn't be argued either way as neither one of us is of authority. If the 9th Amendment is not the defender of the Constitution, then what is? Unarmed citizens, or maybe the Government? In charge of defending it from. .. .Government? "The gun laws we have at the federal level are mainly common sense type laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1993 during the Clinton Administration. Here is a basic excerpt of the law courtesy of Wikipedia, "Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:" (1-9) 6) *I agree with this. A Right should be taken away if there is a valid reason. But by restricting people who do not abuse their rights, is well. .. .not right? (My attempt at a little humor) "The stricter gun laws proposed under President Obama do not attack the Second Amendment since it only states the intention of regulating the sale of guns and ammunition to prevent homicidal maniacs to legally purchase guns (Holmes) or acquire guns from irresponsible owners (Lanza). " 7) *Any Law that restricts any Right of a law abiding citizen IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. A Homicidal Maniac has more "weapons" at their disposal that could inflict more damage than guns. To some, a gun just so happens to be a matter of personal preference. Guns do not create homicidal maniacs. That is a ridiculous notion. And the laws proposed will do absolutely nothing to prevent irresponsibility. They would already face charges for it, so what does the proposal add? Something else to consider, If the governments primary objective (getting back to the debate) is to save lives, children's lives, then why would we ban assault weapons, and not Handguns? Handguns are semiautomatic, concealable, faster to reload, easier to change positions, and shoot a larger diameter on average than "Assault Weapons". Assault Weapons are glorified rifles that you cannot conceal, cannot shoot any faster than a handgun, takes longer to aim, and restricts field of vision while aiming. Could it be because they are a larger threat to government forces at a further range? The Government has already made Machine Guns Illegal for citizens to own. This already compromises a balance in powers of the people versus government forces, if The People were to ever revolt.