Anti-2A Crowd: Please Pick a Side

Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules

On February 21, 2017, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the assault weapons ban imposed by the state of Maryland passed Constitutional muster.  In part, a passage was cited from the 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia decision allowing governments to regulate weapons similar in design and function to those issued to the military, itself a highly questionable interpretation.

For years, one of the loudest arguments offered by those who oppose the notion that mere Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for their own private lawful purposes was that the Second Amendment was adopted to provide for the creation of what is today recognized as the National Guard.  State level organized military units, not individuals concerned with protecting themselves and their property from individuals or governments unlawfully intending harm.

So which is it, Anti-2A Crowd: Does the amendment only refer to the creation of a State Militia (military), or does it permit private citizens to bear arms, just not scary ones?  The argument that "yeah, you can have guns but not guns that might prove effective in a crisis" seems to blur your message just a bit.

The language of the amendment itself seems relatively unambiguous.
     "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."
Shall not be infringed.  Period.  End of amendment.  No invisible ink, no secret decoder ring required, no list of entirely subjective and arbitrary list of exceptions included.

"Shall not be infringed" does not appear to offer a tremendous amount of wiggle room.  "Arms" does not impose a limit on size, features or lethal capacity.  While I cannot imagine a scenario in which I could possibly want or need to possess a nuclear weapon, as an uninfringable right I should be able to do so as long as I command the resources and the desire to acquire one.  Through the years there have been neighbors who I would be uncomfortable with having access to a sling shot.  Regardless, my discomfort does not negate their rights.  Preemptively punishing (restricting) someone for a non-specific act they might conceivably commit at some undefined future point in time is an undeniable infringement, and a denial of the concepts of freedom and personal accountability the United States Constitution enshrines.