There is evidence that some founders clearly thought an individual right to gun ownership existed, while others clearly felt that it pertained to a state militia. The former would protect individuals from any kind of intrustion; the second only from federal intrusion.
There are also those that believe that whatever the case, the 2nd amendment only prevents federal action. State governments could ban all guns if they wanted to. This has been the prevailing notion for the longest time. It is unclear how the 14th amendment applies to the 2nd amendment, since one of the reasons they passed the 14th amendment was to prevent states from preventing Blacks from obtaining guns.
I believe that we have an individual right to guns. However, it is very, very clear, that the founders believed that an individual rights to guns was necessary for self defense, hunting, recreation, etc. Not excessive violence or even overthrow of the government (they left the overthrowing of government to the states, meaning militias). In fact, there were state legislatures like Pennsylvania that brought up gun control in terms of public safety.
Also, I think that it is being dishonest to say that states can also ban guns. The 14th amendment would seem to prevent states from doing certain kinds of regulations (especially outright bans).
Historically, until really 2008, the Supreme Court had consistently ruled that either:
1) An individual right to guns did not exist
2) Some regulations of gun ownership were acceptable since they did not prevent someone from acquiring sufficient weapons with which to defend himself with, hunt with, etc.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise represent