Replies

Why does the ammendment bring up the militia? If the framers wanted an unlimited individual right to bear arms why did they include that at all?

Because "militia" in the parlance of the time meant "every able-bodied male willing to fight". The word "militia" has absolutely nothing to do with the National Guard or any other organized military unit.

Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?

There should be no restrictions - what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? The only acceptable "restrictions" are those against killing or robbing people with guns.

How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine. Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?

I think everything you list qualifies as "arms". Personally, I think everyone should be able to own anything they can afford to buy. It's using those arms to harm others that should be illegal.

If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?

The NRA is trying to prevent the gun-grabbers from taking guns slowly over time. This means they MUST take a no-retreat, no-compromise position. This is the correct stance, in fact, I believe the NRA should be working even more to repeal the ridiculous and ineffective laws on the books now.