The constitution does not do any such thing as guarantee us the unfettered right to bear arms, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
It was not until the ...."District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, that the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.........
Justice Antonin Scalia, was the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise.
In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs"...........http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...amendment.html
Until lately I thought that bumpkin persona of yours was just an act