What few people know, or what others simply choose not to acknowledge, is that the unregulated bearing of arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is unconstitutional.
This is America! We interpret our Constitution to the letter.
So for anyone who says the government should be regulating and legislating our lives, bear this in mind:
There are only three (3) places in the ENTIRE United States Constitution, including all of the Amendments thereto, where the word REGULATE or any variation thereof appears. Three (3) places where the drafters of the Constitution expressly stated that the Federal Government has the power to regulate something. Of those three only one (1) use of the word regulate is preceded by an adjective mandating a heightened state of Regulation. Here are the first 2:
The Congress shall have Power To REGULATE Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, REGULATE the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
The third one is interesting because not only is there an adjective intended to heighten the requirement for regulation, but the language even takes it a step further by PRESUPOSING the existence of a regulatory mandate. Heavy regulation in this one and ONLY case is a foregone conclusion that MUST exist as a condition precedent to the rights afforded to the people:
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.
This language clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists solely as a caveat to the fact that a Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But this is not just any Militia; it is described as a WELL REGULATED Militia. Thus a strict interpretation of this amendment clearly shows that without the existence of a WELL REGULATED Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed.
But let us assume that there may not be a situation in which a free state can exist unless there in-fact exists a well regulated Militia. It means that the “right of the people to bear arms” may not be infringed if and ONLY if the Militia is actually WELL REGULATED.
In other words, the people’s right to keep and bear arms in the United States may be infringed if the Militia necessary to secure a free state (for which the bearing of arms is the only stated reason the right to bear arms may not be infringed) is not WELL REGULATED.
So what does all this mean? It means that the Second Amendment is in fact one that mandates strict gun control laws and regulations in order to ensure that the people are keeping and bearing arms to ENSURE THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. The right of the people to bear arms, therefore, CANNOT exist in a system of unregulated and indiscriminate mass distribution of arms to the unregulated masses among whom are those who will use them in mass shootings and violent crime (by definition the exact opposite of a secure free state). We bear arms so not to live in fear, but if the bearing of arms is not regulated, then the consequences are that the people are living in fear. Living in fear is not freedom; it is Tyranny, the very thing that necessitated the creation of the United States, the Constitution and its Amendments.