Violence & Guns

It is all the NRA rage to be in our face about not regulating guns... in any way.  They endlessly cite the Second Amendment as the justification for not limiting guns in the hands of citizens.

This is completely wrong and wrong headed.  The founding fathers wrote the second amendment to put in a place a way to defend the country that would not require that we have a standing army.  To this day all Army appropriations are for no more than two years.  The Navy, and Air Force can be open ended but the Army; two years maximum.  What the writers of the Constitution were talking about was a WELL REGULATED MILITIA being something that was good... not gun ownership.  That is a twist that gun crazies have passed off on the public and it is time to stop their lying nonsense. 

My reply on line to a post by a friend who was getting static from a gun believer was: 

"??The Constitution does NOT allow for the ownership of assault weapons. It allows for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA... what part of that is vague?? The U.S. founders did not want a standing army and having a militia was the way to accomplish that. IF one follows the intent of words we can regulate the bejeeeesus out of all guns."

In addition what part of "well regulated" is problematic?  It is not about keeping guns at one's home... the regulation could be that the guns in question need to be kept at a barracks or depot.  It could be said that only guns of a certain sort can be kept at all.  It was not the intent that guns should be kept in order to keep our government in line... that is insurrection and there are lots of laws and legal precedent to say that is treasonous to take up arms against our government.  

"Well regulated militia" also implies regular training from core military personnel.  

The pass that congress has given the gun companies to dodge legal responsibilities for their product is another of the misunderstandings that the NRA has allowed.  This too is wrong headed.  More on that another time.