Gun Rights and Gun Wrongs

Text of the 2nd Amendment

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 seems like the gun debate is going to go on now no matter how many times the issue got brushed under the rug by both parties in the past.

I'm very conflicted on where I stand on this issue.  As a libertarianish person, I tend to ere on the side of rights, but am concerned over the extremism I hear in some of the gun rights advocates.

I believe in the right to own guns, but the idea that the government has no business deciding who is allowed to have guns or how deadly the guns are allowed to be is ludicrous.

It's not that I fear guns or anything like that.  In fact, I own a 20 gauge, a 12 gauge and a 22.  Unlike Barack Obama, I do not shoot these guns "all the time", but I do feel it at least establishes that I'm not some sheltered city dweller that fears anything deadlier than a three inch knife.

The NRA and other organizations are correct in that the right to bear arms was not just for hunting.  If you really read the constitution, it refers to a well organized militia.  The thing that seems to be lost on many of the NRA lobbyists and the voters they manipulate though is that this militia was for the protection and not the overthrow of the government.  The thing that is hard for many to understand in this day and age was that there was no "standing army" or permanent professional fighting force.  Militias were gathered from local citizens who provided their own arms (muskets at the time) in the event another country or the native population would attack their state.

The idea that the 2nd Amendment was solely to prevent Tyranny is absurd.  Were this true, then George Washington himself would have violated the constitution by having the army put down the Whiskey Rebellion.  The idea that any government would accept its own demise as legitimate is ridiculous.

It makes no sense that I need to take a test to get a drivers license and then continually get my vision tested throughout my life to ensure I'm not a danger to myself or others on the road but any one could go to a gun show and buy a gun without so much as a criminal background check.  You could have a Nazi tattoo on your forehead and be wearing a shirt that says "I like to kill people" and you could walk out of there with the ultimate instrument of life and death.  This is wrong and anyone with any sense should agree.

Regarding the lethality of weapons that are allowed, I'm not sure where I stand on this, but I do know that there has to be some limit.  The idea that malcontents are allowed to have the same firepower as a seal team storming a fortified perimeter is nonsense.  If you think this seems unconstitutional, then you need to ask yourself if your neighbor should be allowed to set up mortars in their yard or if you should be able to go to Arizona and buy a nuclear weapon.  Just because it can fit in your hands doesn't mean their should be no limits to its power.

The NRA and all their special interest parrots are ultimately not acting in the interest of gun owners.  Pushing their dystopian, Mad Max vision for the country with armed details for all and kindergarten rifle patrols just will allow people like Nancy Pelosi who hate guns to write all the rules.  Nothing is not an acceptable answer for what the nation should do about its mass murder problem.