Diuretic
Permanently confused
And no sane person actually claims the Government can not REASONABLY regulate what weapons we can have. Larkinn keeps claiming that the ONLY intrepretation of the second that allows private ownership includes NO limits. A standard that is NOT applied to ANY OTHER Right in the Constitution.
It is fear mongering designed to scare people away from the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms.
The second amendment is clear, it establishes several rights. It provides a promise to the States that they will always have a right to a militia and it establishes that every citizen is given the right to own, possess, and bear arms for self defense, for defense of community and for defense of Nation.
NO other place that the term " the people" appears is there a claim that it is not conveying a PERSONAL right or power.
A personal, individual right.
When the decision to add the Amendments was made over 180 amendments were proposed. These were whittled down to just 10. Most of those 10 Amendments encompass more than one right or concept in them.
I wouldn't presume to tell someone else about the efficacy of their laws (well not on an habitual basis at least). Fair points and taken. Thank you.