Before attempting to think again, go read the text of the Second Amendment ten times.
Then try a re-interpretation.
If your thinking parts are working correctly, you will come to the same conclusion as many constitutional scholars, including the notoriously liberal Lawrence Tribe, namely that the Second Amendment absolutely bans the government from limiting the right of the citizen to posses any weapon that has a military use.
A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment would protect the right to own fully-automatic weapons and grenade launchers, but not a target pistol, long barrel shotgun or lever-action carbine.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens have access to, and the absolute right to own, carry and use, such weapons as would be necessary to overthrow a government gone out of control.
Including nuclear weapons?
Amen, brother. Amen. And that's why we'll always be free, if we have the brains and courage to know when we're supposed to pull that rip cord. Hopefully never.
"A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment would protect the right to own fully-automatic weapons and grenade launchers, but not a target pistol, long barrel shotgun or lever-action carbine."
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens have access to, and the absolute right to own, carry and use, such weapons as would be necessary to overthrow a government gone out of control."
I don't agree with the 1st paragraph. ANY weapon can be used to resist government oppression, even a single-shot pistol. See http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37519eb3511d.htm In short, a resistance fighter uses a simple weapon to obtain one or more complex and lethal weapons, he and a buddy or 2 or 3 use that/those to get more and better weapons, and so on, until you have a resistance force armed with crew-served machine guns, mortars, anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets, etc.
Those target pistols, long barreled shotguns and lever-action carbines are lethal weapons. Some of them (notably the lever-action) was probably part of the issued military equipment of the US armed forces or those of another nation at some point in the 19th or early 20th centuries and, as such, they would be protected firearms (IMHO). No less a guerilla fighter than Marshall Tito backs up my point. Once he was asked how his fighters, armed with obsolete bolt-action rifles, could possibly hope to take on the German Wehrmacht, armed with new Panzers. His response is a true classic: "Well, when the German soldiers come out of their new tanks to take a piss, my fighters will shoot them with their obsolete rifles." What do you think of your target pistol now?
Frankly, ANY weapon issued to ANY unit of ANY nation's armed forces for use by individual soldiers at ANY point in history should be protected under the 2nd. One can even make an argument for more serious weapons (naval cannon, for example - why else would there be a provision for Letters of Marque in the Constitution if private individuals didn't have the right to own ships armed with cannon?).
I know that we're on the same side, but I thought that this needed clarification.
Correct, 2 nd amendment is to ensure that the citizens can be as well armed as the military. How else can we overthrow a tryannical government?