Funny enough that you mention that the government should follow the constitution. You anti-gun control freaks seem to have missed the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment, which implies gun control:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"Well regulated" applies to Militias in that sentence, not the ownership of firearms. Basically, it is saying that citizens should be allowed to own and master firearms so that if they are ever needed to be part of a Militia, they will already be armed and trained in the use of firearms. How could you possibly misinterpret that to mean that the firearms should be regulated? This is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Militia means armed citizenry.
The second amendment says that the armed citizenry should be well-regulated.
Now, seeing as regulations of some form are sanctioned by the second amendment, why are anti-gun control people always so against regulations of any kind?
Also, the amendment is wrong.
A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Well Regulated means properly trained, equipped, and organized when referring to a Militia. I know you anti firearm people like to move words that are at the beginning of a sentence to make it reference something at the end of the sentence, but the fact is the words Well Regulated were referring to the word that immediately following them, which is Militia, and the fact is that well regulated means that a Militia would be compatible and comparable with regular troops as far as the equipment that they have and their ability to fight. Have you ever even studied the American Revolution?
No. Well-regulated means the same thing when referring to anything:
regulated - control or supervise something by means of rules and regulations.
You literally could've just searched "define regulated" online and found this.
You really seem like an idiot right now. During the American Revolution, the term Regulars was applied to the official military troops on both sides. Militias were more haphazardly assembled. After the war, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, the people who wrote it knew the term Regular to mean a soldier, so allowing a group to be Regulated meant that it was allowed to be like the Regular army. This is not rocket science, folks. You can twist words and meanings around all you want, but you can't change the fact that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your only defense on this is what the term 'regulated' means and to what it applies. Seems like you are really digging at the bottom of the barrel here.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't think that any gun-control advocate wants guns to banned entirely.
We just want there to be regulations, as advocated by the second amendment.
If these regulations are on the type of gun, then fine.
If these regulations are on who is allowed to have guns, then fine.
If these regulations are on where guns can be carried, then fine.
And, if you are the student of history that you appear to be, then you should know what 'arms' constituted back in the 1700's.
Muskets, which have a fire rate of approximately 3 shots per minute with the accuracy of a drunken piss.
Maybe if the founding fathers had known of automatic weapons and school shootings then they wouldn't have added that amendment.
Also, you haven't addressed my other major point.
If the Second Amendment is so clearly wrong when it talks about the security of a state, then we can see that the constitution is not infallible.
Maybe at the time, and in the circumstance; a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of that particular free state; but demonstrably, armed citizenry is not necessary to the security of a state.
Poll