I believe certain things about the interpretation of the Second Amendment need to be made clear. All this hoopla that there can be no regulation made pertaining to the use of or possession of guns is not true. If there could be no restriction on who can have a gun or use one, then one must beg the question why are felons forbidden to have or use a gun.
And on top of that I didn't hear one word from the radical NRA about police in California taking guns away from felons. Federal law prevents the sale of weapons to people who have a warrant out for their arrest, have used drugs within the past year, were committed involuntarily to a mental institution or ruled mentally incompetent by a judge, are living in the U.S. illegally, have a domestic-violence-related restraining order against them or have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. People who were dishonorably discharged from the military or who have renounced their U.S. citizenship are also barred from gun purchases. Clearly then there can be restrictions on the use of guns or who can have them.
In all our freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, there is a limit to that freedom because total freedom could violate the rights of others. Such an example is the freedom of speech. One of the restrictions on that freedom is you cannot libel an individual or make threats to his life or property. Also the use of profane language over the airways was banned. And today some stations still ban it. Take freedom of religion--you have that freedom until that religion requires you to murder or kill an individual. The unabridged freedom to practice Sharia law in this country as part of the Islamic faith which allows the right to murder an individual would of course be denied.
I am one for sensible gun control and have as such signed many a petition to that effect. All such petitions I have signed NEVER were to take guns away, only to RESTRICT their usage. I would not sign such a petition, as much as I dislike guns, because it is IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE EVERY ONE'S GUN AWAY! And if just one gun remained in a person's possession that individual could terrorize or kill all those around him.
The NRA in its insane opposition to sensible gun control can't stand even one person not liking guns. Back a few decades ago, I believe it was Millard Tydings who lost an election for the U. S. Senate in Maryland just because he didn't like guns and the NRA went into a frenzy, which turned the electorate against Mr. Tydings. Just because I don't like guns and not even push for their elimination, I should lose an election? Should I be punished just because I don't like something? Suppose I don't like loud music am I to be punished for disliking it?
I think the old adage regarding freedom applies, "with freedom comes responsibility" And that can apply to the Second Amendment or any other freedom granted to us by God's or man's law. A gun in the hands of an irresponsible person certainly needs to be regulated. Even the right to drive a car has to be regulated to keep people from driving recklessly and killing or injuring others.
The part people really don't understand about the Second Amendment is that the people must belong to the MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES IN ORDER TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT. Unfortunately the militias of today, including the National Guard, are not the true militia the Founding Fathers had in mind. To get an idea of who the true constitutionally mandated militia of the several states are,one needs to study Dr. Edwin Vieira's and Devvy Kidd's numerous articles on the subject by visiting the NewsWithViews.com
website. I believe that militia desperately needs to be established which would be the answer to control the run away and near tyrannical government of today.