Based on what? Do you believe in the right to keep and bear arms? What makes that legitimate? Only government approval? If so, doesn't that fly in the face of it being a right?
Larry, every right has reasonable limits. For example, the oft-touted "fire in a crowded theater" argument.
It is reasonable to say people who have repeatedly used firearms in committing a crime may be limited or even denied future use of firearms, just like taking away a driver's license from someone who has demonstrated repeated DUI actions.
So, one may have the 2A
and be for reasonable limitations on that restriction of government interference. As with any other limitation on governmental involvement in citizens' lives, the question is exactly where that line is drawn, not whether there is a line drawn. For example, for the entirety of the existence of the United States, marriage laws were handled by the tenth amendment. Very recently, the United States government determined that the tenth amendment to the constitution no longer applies, and that the federal government gets to establish
some of the requirements for what constitutes "marriage" to obtain a state marriage license/certificate. However, other requirements (like age, closeness of blood relationship, whether or not one is in another relationship, etc.) are still left to the states. In my opinion, the federal government overstepped its bounds of the tenth in doing this. The question isn't whether the states may restrict who they allow to register relationships with the government - the tenth makes that clear the states may do this - the question is whether or not the federal government should get involved in that state's right to do so. Same here with 2A, essentially. The question isn't whether or not the government may get involved; the question is to what extent the government may get involved.
