"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."It has been clear to me since I first read these words in elementary school that the people who wrote this intended to offer a free people physical protection from being over-run by a tyrannical government via simple intimidation with firearms. This language did not anticipate cruise missiles, tanks, armoured HumVees, helicopters, cluster bombs or A-10's.
In short, the protection this amendment was intended to provide no longer exists. It has been rendered meaningless by the technology of war. The people who wrote the constitution had no way to foresee this development. The US military can easily seize control of a populace armed only with AR-15's. They drill on this. Routinely. Most large civilian police forces and National Guard units could subjugate a populace armed only with small arms also. It would be bloody, but it would be decisive.
The people of the United States have a much more powerful and decisive protection from tyranny: ourselves. Who are they going to find to fight in a US military that turns against the US people? Which sworn police officers are going to kill civilians to impose a tyrant's rule inside the US?
We don't need guns to protect ourselves from tyranny, we have each other.
Sport, sustenance, trophy and target hunting exist in every part of the world without protections like the second amendment. Foreign governments craft laws that create conditions under which law-abiding citizens can own and maintain hunting and sporting firearms. The obstacles vary, of course, but essentially none are absolute.
Even North Korea has a target shooting Olympic team.
Supreme Court Justice Scalia opines in DC v Heller that the second amendment specifically does not protect AR-15's. Here, when defining the word "arms," he's fairly clear
"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. "An AR-15 is a military weapon. It does not belong in the hands of civilians. It enjoys zero constitutional protection according to perhaps the Supreme Court Justice most given to granting protections to firearms otherwise.
High-capacity magazines are designed for military use. Hunters scare off their prey with their first shot, they don't need 29 more rounds after that first one.
The US government should ban these weapons, high-capacity magazines, and every other accessory designed for military use from ownership by private citizens. All existing AR-15's should be bought back by the military. Simple possession by a private citizen should be a felony, aggravated conviction being met with 10 years imprisonment or more.
This can all be done without modification to the second amendment.
