As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.
Okay, now you're just deflecting.
"The Second Amendment is about militia members. No, wait, I'm only talking about assault weapons! Forget what I just said, that you just proved wrong!"
You are correct that militias are mentioned in the Second Amendment for a reason. You are incorrect in your original assertion, from which you cravenly backpedaled, that it was to limit the right to keep and bear arms to only those people and that purpose. You are FURTHER incorrect in the assertion that it was to restrict the ownership of assault weapons, defined by you as high-capacity magazines and semi- or full auto firing systems, to militias and their members, since those things didn't exist at the time.
The purpose of that phrase is simple: It is to provide a reason for specifically delineating the right to keep and bear arms in its own Amendment, rather than leaving its protection up to the 9th and 10th Amendments.
