Whether the purpose of the right to 'keep and bear arms' was intended only for the preservation of militias is still something that is contended. But the general consensus in America is that the people regardless of militia status have a right to own firearms. In the light of the culture at the time of the second amendment's passage, I personally believe that it had more to do with the preservation of militias; as such 'minuteman' militias were instrumental to the winning of American independence. And at the time, local militias were more of an integral part of American life that to suggest the government taking away such a right to defend their localities by banning such organizations or their ability to arm themselves was seen as taking away a town's right to defend them and their families from outside aggression (mainly invaders and Indians) as well as tyranny. And at the time, militias were vastly comprised of everyday people; so "the people" and "militia" in terms of the right to keep and bear arms was almost synonymous at the time. And of course now the cultural climate of America (we now have a standing Army, etc.) is so different that "the people" and "militia" isn't so synonymous anymore. Whether that connotes the irrelevance or now the heightened importance of an armed populace will be a topic of future contention. But I believe we at least need to underline the vast differences in the America then with the America now.

But I'm sure most other Americans on this board will disagree with me.

But even with that in light, I don't think the government has the prerogative to completely ban weapons anyway. I used to be completely pro-gun rights; I would essentially disagree with any legislation that would place any kind of hindrance on the populace to be able to blow things away. I think I've matured this line of thinking by now. Now I see the virtues in certain caps, and especially gun registration; but I also don't think guns should be completely outlawed. Generally speaking, the responsibility of gun safety should be placed on the shoulders of those using them (or the parents of those using them). Likewise, if someone commits a crime with one, you should punish that individual under the law rather than attempt to somehow lessen such crimes by banning that specific weapon.

Also, something that is contrary to popular belief in the United States and something worth sharing is that, I believe the Second Amendment hasn't even been officially applied to the states. So theoretically any state could pass laws abolishing private gun ownership within the realms of the law and Constitution. That is, until someone takes it to court and the Supreme Court finds that the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment also to the states.

I wouldn't really say this is true; especially because Canadians have more guns per household than Americans. I would say that the culture of fear and militarism seems to be rather distinctly American (at the present time). I definitely think the obviously unprecedented amount of gun violence in America has more to do with the American cultural and ideological climate than the availability of guns. We Americans need to focus more on maturing this culture than banning guns, thereby attacking the problem at its source.