With all due respect, should the US government decide to make war on guns, even with the things "collectors" hold in the USA - there is no contest against the military that invented "shock and awe". An armed militia is no defence whatsoever against the US military if deployed.

The recital that rationalises the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant.

I should however point out a technicality "The right of the people (etc)" does not create a right. It refers to such right as there may be and if the right is diminished then there is still a right that shall not be infringed.

It would have been easy enough to say "Every person shall have the right to bear arms" - and even then it might have been easy to distinguish between swords and rapiers and knives, on the one hand, limited magazine rifles and pistols (let's think, Winchester up to 15 rounds, the Henry 16 rounds, Colt 45 up to 6, some revolvers 7) and true machine guns like Gatling (and Gardner and Nordenfeldt).

The English were wiser in 1689 to enact "the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" - and of course that was the parent for the US drafting in the US Bill of Rights (itself a compromise measure).


Despite the folly of the US wording, the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled that such right is "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"


The idea that the US constitution allows all and any weapons is irrational and dangerous.