Comment: My view is this: Prior to the

My view is this:

Prior to the 14th amendment, the federal amendment couldn't restrict individuals from possessing arms. States could do anything they wanted as long as it was in line with their own laws. However, the federal government had the right to regulate guns in regards to the militia.

The founders were definitely wary of federal encroachment. They were also worried about states not having militias that could be reliablely called upon. So they killed two birds with one stone. Preventing federal encroachment on guns rights would give individuals/states the right to bear arms, but the federal government could also regulate the militia.

This can be seen as silly. Clearly, this was part of the intention, as the federal government passed numerous laws about the quality of rifles, of powder, of militias, etc. very early in the Constitution. However, wouldn't people who feared the government taking away their guns also have feared the government simply regulating the guns to ineffectiveness? This implies that the federal government could only set higher standards, not lower.

After the 14th amendment, I think a new right has been enshrined in the Constitution. Certain arms; arms that one needs for self defense, cannot be deprived of you by anyone. Even your state.

Furthermore, there can definitely be gun licensing and registration laws at any level. Just like you have to register to vote, you have to register your gun. I also think that they can restrict certain people from owning guns in certain ways:

1) If the right to own a gun is revoked by due process.
2) If there is a clear intention to not use it in an intended way.

Some people might get alarmed by that second point, but the list of intended ways are broad. Honestly, using it to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is one of them. So is self defense, hunting, recreational uses, etc. But if there is ever a reason to believe that you intend to use the gun in an aggressive manner, restrictions.

And of course, this implies punishing you for something you haven't done yet. Everyone understand stopping someone in the midst of a shooting, or even stopping someone who has committed a crime before...but how about infringing on his right to own a gun because you suspect he is going to do something?

That line has to be drawn. For example, even pre-9/11, we had the rule "don't say 'I have a bomb'" in the airport". Even when joking, it crosses the line into making you a suspect.

In regards to guns, I do not know where that line is. I definitely think it should be before the gun is being aimed at an innocent. But I certainly don't think we should be going after every gun-owner who is on antidepressants.