The reason that the second amendment is a human right enumerated in the bill of rights is that the writers of the constitution thought it important that the government not grow tyrannical , and that the people should own enough military power that it dare not.
It was within their knowledge that many governments have grown military power for the purpose of oppression, using up the resources of the people to the peoples own enslavement.
So the second amendment recognises the importance of Militia training and thereby the responsibility of gun ownership, the organisation and discipline that makes the guns better than dangerous toys. Then it makes clear that the people have the right to the power that this represents, and that this is a personal right not to be infringed.
As a nation we have been slack in maintaining the militia, it is a missing element that in part justifies the complaints of those who want guns to be controlled. Guns should be controlled , they should not be controlled by the central government . The idea is not that guns should be everywhere and everywhen with no discipline applied, this doesn't seem like a good idea and isn't the point of the second amendment. The idea is also not that the Federal government should regulate guns into rarity and limit their access to those friendly to the government , this is the situation that free people should find anathema.
The point of the second amendment is a two pronged fork, Responsibility and availability need to be paired. The people do need to possess enough military prowess that the government should be held in check against despotism. This more than implies that the people ought be organised in ways that promotes discipline with this responsibility, the despot is not resisted by individuals when he attacks the people with an army , the despot is resisted by an army of the people , a militia.
Gun controller nuts have a legitimate gripe if they note a lack of gun discipline , but infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms is a backwards solution, the second amendment should be activated and enforced in the spirit in which it was written.
Gun owners need to be called into militia, trained and disciplined militarily, and who should be left out?
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/12/14/justice-breyer-the-second-amendment-and-federalist-46/Madison’s views were commonplace at the time. Justice Story, appointed by James Madison to the US Supreme Court wrote in 1833 in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:
“The next amendment is: ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ “
“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid.”
