First let me state that I'm Canadian and as such did not grow up around guns. With respect to guns I am neither an abolitionist nor absolutist. No guns vs. no restrictions. However there is something I have never understood when the talk of gun control surfaces.
The 2nd amendment states:
"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."
Suppose there is a shotgun and a pistol on a table and someone wants to exercise their Constitutional rights - they can take one or both weapons. If before they select I remove the shotgun how is the 2nd amendment violated? The person can pick up the pistol.
I'm not asking this as a pro-ban/anti-ban question. I'm just not getting why restrictions violate the Constitution. If in the scenario I removed both weapons then I can see that as a violation but if a gun exists to be used - what's the problem?
It seems that the people arguing for no restrictions based on the 2nd Amendment imply that because a gun is manufactured/exists they have a Constitutional right to own it. But even before all the gun control hulabaloo wasn't it illegal to procure foreign made assault weapons? Can someone own a Tomahawk or Stinger missile? I don't think so - please correct me if I'm wrong. To take this to an absurd level - if I made a gun which could level a city - does the 2nd Amendment imply that anyone has a right to own it?
So if the notion of restriction in those cases is ok then why can't the government restrict other types of weapons?
Isn't this really a question of where you draw the line on those restrictions as opposed to a Constitutional crisis?