Right to Bear Arms
But into this Second Amendment discussion one can introduce the idea of a 'simple weapon of mass destruction' or SWMD which did not exist at the time the 2nd Amendment was conceived. The roadside bombs, machineguns, anthrax envelopes, or intoxicated drivers that kill many in a single instance are very real things in this century. In the 1790s an SWMD was very nearly inconceivable, but if you decided to roll a loaded eight pounder filled with grapeshot down main street, guess what the local militia would do to you with or without a 2nd Amendment ? The proliferation of SWMDs that can be concealed on one's person has changed the original meaning of ' keep and bear arms'. The modern militias (that is, police and their deputies) carry items like automatic carbines, 15 shot large caliber pistols, spray firing shotguns and have almost immediate access to building-destroying munitions from the military. And these are just to protect themselves and others from predators who have similar SWMD in their clothes. The Second Amendment concept was to allow the training of local militiamen through their ability to bear arms. Training certainly included the ability to hunt for food or go to competitions or practice target shooting to protect one's family against the occasional highwayman. Indeed, the training might be considered a 'useful art' enumerated by the Article I, Section 8 powers of the Congress. This bearing of arms meant defending oneself and others in the absence, note absence, of constituted authority such as sheriffs and deputies. The Amendment was to establish the right of self-defense in the absence of any other defense and that has been a human value since the last ice age. To ban such a right implies that the prohibitioners believe that ALL humans have evolved dramatically since that ice age, a flat contradiction of human history.
Nearly all modern crimes are committed by the use of SWMD from ambush in the absence of constituted authority. Even selling drugs to ten people could qualify as an SWMD attack, compounded by the attacker's use of other SWMD to insure his drug attack. With modern popelations, it is an ideological unreality to expect constituted authority to protect every person all the time against modern forms of terrorism. It would be more appropriate define the Second Amendment in terms of the defense of citizens in the modern society who are protecting themselves with regulated personal defense weapons against predators with attack weapons AFTER a constitutionally recognized ban on SWMD devices is established as segments of society see fit. Any current ban on all weapons that does not carefully define the difference between personal defense rights and predatory ambush should not be held as constitutional.
Definition of a Simple Weapon of Mass Destruction: any personal device or combination of personal devices (excluding communication devices) that will kill, physically maim or mentally harm a group of people in less time than it takes to prepare, load and use a musket of 1790.
Question of interest: While 'communication devices' are not under the Second Amendment's jurisdiction, is there a point where they become a SWMD ? People talk all the time. They send pictures of each other all the time, at least in the 21st century. Sometimes the pictures are malicious and intended to do harm. The definition of SWMD says 'harm to many' in less than 30 seconds. Electronic communications as a WMD wouldn't have occured to Madison in writing the Bill of Rights around 1789.