••

Here's a thought: a STRICT enforcement of the Second Amendment in the context of what it would have meant to the framers. Bear arms, yes. But only single shot flintlocks and blunderbusses!

The right to bear arms also didn`t anticipate the sort of military grade weaponary we have today.

Hold that thought for a moment. The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that citizens should have the rights to possess weapons to protect themselves - foremost from the government. Now, at the time of the writing of the second amendment, I imagine that farmers and townsfolk had, more or less, the same level of weapons that the military had (muskets and the like).

Could it not be the intent of the Founders that ordinary people should have the same grade of weapons that the military/law enforcement have - in order to keep things at a level playing field? 

Granted if you take this concept all the way, there should be no issue with citizens owning anti-tank weapons, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction. Food for thought...

••

No, the purpose of the Second Amendment is so that citizens can PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT.

It was Alexander Hamilton who said (in The Federalist Papers):

••

You DO understand there's nothing "official" about the Federalist Papers, right?

The Federalist Papers are a useful insight into the thinking of some of the Founders. However, they are not in the document itself. A strict constructionist, so to speak, would not avail himself of the Founders' errata and appendices but would stick by the wording of the document itself.

In context, the language of the Second Amendment really translates as "we don't have an army so guys can own guns and we'll call them up in times of trouble." Over time, this has been rendered unnecessary but the amendment itself was never challenged or revised.

The gun lobby would insist that the part of the amendment relating to "well regulated militia" etc is meaningless, and that the real meat of the wording is that it allows people to own guns. Well, they're wrong.

First, no right, Constitutional or otherwise, is unlimited; every right is subject to certain rules and conditions.

Second, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either the entire wording applies--along with the inherent meaning--or none of it does. With the creation of an army and National Guard, it is debatable that the concern addressed by the Second Amendment is now obsolete.

Third, the Founders *did* allow citizens to own weaponry that was "military grade" for its day. However, also as noted, it is highly unlikely that the goal was for people to arm themselves to fight the authority of the government. The US government was not shy about putting down rebellion up to and including the Civil War. Do not think for a minute that arming yourself to fight "government tyranny" (which is a meaningless term if devoid of context) is a protected right; it is not.

So... gun owners are not going to face the confiscation of their weapons. That is a paranoid fantasy pushed by the NRA-- if even ONE example could be offered, it might have the tiniest shred of plausibility but... it does not.

In the meantime, we're left to consider a wide array of new executive orders and legislation that might abate gun violence and mass shootings. If we allow the NRA to dictate the terms of that discussion, we can be assured that nothing at all will happen. Ever.