Paul, I would say there is none. The "well-regulated militia" clause is merely prefatory. The operative language is "shall not be infringed."

The language of the Second Amendment was the result of political compromise of the times, and was left ambiguous in places on purpose.

Jim

Hmmmm, I'm still buying more guns, lol.

The federalist papers 29 and 46 gave the reasons behind the 2nd amendment.

Madison on the 2nd - https://bearingarms.com/glyon/2013/10/05/madison-on-the-2nd-amendment-milita-clause/

The Second Amendment seems slightly ambiguous in the modern day, so an examination of what the founders intended the Amendment to mean at the time would be more productive. Here are some quotes by men who wrote and signed the Constitution regarding the use and ownership of firearms:

http://sites.psu.edu/considerconservatis...t-be-infringed/

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”– Samuel Adams

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “– Thomas Jefferson

These statements and many others indicate that the authors of the Constitution believed that the right to bear arms was an individual and inalienable right, necessary to protect society from tyrannical governments. Additionally, an argument made for personal gun rights is that the allowance for a government militia or army is present in Article 1, Section 8 of the original Constitution, and the Second Amendment specifically added the rights of the people to bear arms after referencing the militia clause. The entire Bill of Rights was, as indicated by its name, added for the safeguarding of the rights of American citizens and states, and almost all the evidence points towards the Second Amendment acknowledging an individual right to bear arms.

If we are to protect ourselves from a "tyrannical" government, how can we do that with inferior arms? We need to have arms equal to those in government who would wish to impose their will on us.

Absolutely !

I agree with Paul.

I deserve to own a grenade launcher, and some anti tank weaponry . Just in case.

I do not have links to back up my opinion on this but I believe that the founders were against having a standing federal army. As large and powerful and expensive as ours is currently it is mind boggling to imagine it that way, today. However, if citizens were encouraged to own automatic weapons, and other weapons of war I believe we would be an effective defensive force. Personally owned weapons are usually of much higher quality, cared for more correctly and respected more than a government owned arsenal. Imagine the quality of Machine Gun, for instance, that would be available today due to innovation driven by a consumer market rather than being sold in lots of the lowest common denomination to the government only. Thus topic is in the land of fantasy, but it would be nice to at least repeal the NFA. That isn't fantasy.

I think we need a strong military. Every organism needs a defense, and sometimes an offense. There is too much disparity in the world for us to not have a guard up, globally .

The liberals want us to be more like Europe. If you have ever been to Europe. They don't live on their property, they live in small towns. Every few miles there is one. They did this for protection. In some countries they didn't own the land they lived on. They paid rent to the owner. Also, the king or the rich owns the wildlife. It was illegal for the common man to hunt. Also, it was illegal to own firearms.

Here in the U.S.A. we own or land. We live on our own land. Your next door neighbor could be miles down the road. Here the common man can hunt the game on his property. Also, we were living in a hostile land were you depended on yourself for protection.

This is why the second amendment was put in.

Garryowen

Great job Paul!, you are a great American sir. Thank you

Indeed.

I still get a laugh out of the people who call Trump the devil and Hitler, yet would trust only him and the government with the guns.

Solid proof they ain't thinking right.

As well intended as the bill of rights was, it was still a compromise; Madison intended it all be part of the main body on the Constitution. Not all our Founding Fathers were in favor of freedom, something we tend to forget. Amendments can be revoked, and some day soon there will be a movement to revoke the 2nd.

So, a couple more apparently in favor of firearms freedom, I think that's up to 5-6 now and still so many want restrictions.
Restrictions, no matter how well intended only restrict the law abiding, why do we have so much trouble comprehending that basic fact? This forum is made up of trappers and hunters, people that use guns, the supposed "right"; yet the majority are in favor of gun control. Again, the op question is moot, there seems to be no right wing opposition to gun control.
The apparent stance of the "right wing" is gun control is great as long as I personally can keep a few.

The democrats have shown you exactly where they stand. If Hillary had won things would be a lot different. A few on the right may waver. We need to take note of them and vote them out.


Garryowen

Way off topic and I'm not a Libertarian, but I see stoning at the public meeting place by all the people as the Bible directs.

What is your view?

Garryowen, Democrats and Republicans drink at the same trough and both have little use for Personal Liberty.

That's it right there.

My view is that the punishment should fit the crime.
Now the question. Is there a crime committed that, other than capital punishment, is worthy of the punishment of the loss of constitutionally protected rights?