The Second Amendment Myth: But You Didn't Say I Couldn't

The question remains: what rights do we have when it comes to firearms?

Just because the Second Amendment doesn't implicitly protect an individual's right to posses a slingshot, does that mean we can't have a revolver or even an M60?

My father fought for justice and truth his whole life. He is the greatest example of a libertarian I know. He sacrificed his family, life, career, and spiritual future for what he felt was right. He believed in the rights of the individual. He believed that we didn't need a right to bear Arms. He was of the mindset that if the Constitution didn't expressly prohibit it, it was fair-game. To say he hated the Bill of Rights was an understatement. The very problem with the Bill of Rights is that by expressing them in writing, you limit them to what is written. He felt that all of us had every single right not expressly prohibited by the Constitution and to express any right was to limit that right to a convoluted definition. So according to my old man, unless legal decree or precedence limits the rights of an individual to possess an Abrams tank, one has the right to said vehicle, of course only in light of one being able to lawfully obtain one. And that's the rub.

Even in this current malaise of a Second-Amendment miscue, one does not have the right to an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) but one does have the right to an assault-rifle, endless ammo, body armor, and plenty of chemicals to make many bombs of many types. The threat isn't about the instrument but the degree. What level of access to what kinds of weaponry do we, as the People, want to prohibit and permit to whom and why? Do we want to live in a society like Australia where only the police are entrusted with weapons more deadly than a rifles? Are we ready to end this horrific violence and get real? Listen to Australia; they are a wonderful example of getting it right, right after the tragedy. They didn't wait for another. Of course, they didn't have the NRA to deal with either.

Why does the NRA fight this? Why else? Cash. It's pathetic. There is no Constitutional reason why hunters and sportsman cannot enjoy their tiny hand-cannons but the NRA makes their mint pretending the myth is under threat. Laws exist to regulate dangerous situations. Not everyone can simply build a skyscraper. There are permits and certifications required to erect a structure that might collapse on people. And as we regulate the privilege of driving a metal box at speeds and forces capable of creating significant destruction, guns will eventual be regulated to the point they no longer pose this crippling threat. Why? It's Constitutional. My old man constantly reiterated the language's clarity: Militias are a body of the State, not the definition of an individual.