Is it time to talk about guns?

Here is a better explanation than I can give...but in brief.

Washington D.C. passed a law requiring license to own a gun within D.C. limits and all guns kept in a home must have a trigger lock.

Heller contested this, it went to the supreme court which ruled 5 to 4 that although the 2nd was written specifically for militias, militias don't have to be well organized as there may be future militias and they would have to be formed from the citizenry and as such, individuals have the right to own a weapon. They are still subject to limitations as to who is allowed to own them, where they can be carried, safety regulations, etc. Therefore the D.C. statue was illegal.

The dissenting justices argued that:

This ruling overturned over 200 years of precedent in regards to gun ownership and reaffirmed that the 2nd applies to militias only, yet ruled that everyone belongs to a "future well organized militia" (except those that aren't allowed to own guns). Figure that one out!

As to an originalist interpretation on which the ruling was based, an original interpretation would require that gun ownership in a home by an individual would not be supported,

 

No they didn't.

Posting simplistic slogans may be fun but it shows a complete distortion of facts and a lack of understanding of events that lead to various outcomes.

The British didn't demand that we hand over any guns, what they demanded was that we pay taxes on molasses, limit our exports, allow British soldiers to enter homes to search for illegal goods, house British soldiers, not print our own currency, etc..

Your other two postings are just as simplistic and irrelevant.

 

It is true that the British wanted to destroy the arsenal, but the cache of weapons at Concord was being stored for an armed conflict with the British, it wasn't the cause of the revolution, it was a result of the revolutionary papers that had already formed the start of that revolution.
The British were reacting to the meeting of the First Continental Congress which endorsed the Suffolk Resolves. Those resolves ordered citizens to rebel agaisnt the British acts mentioned in my post above, bar British goods, and raise militias agaisnt the British.
They also formed the Continental Association which prohibited exports to Britain, provided for the searching of ships, and demanded loyalty oaths.

The British were attempting to quell an uprising that the colonist had already started.
The march on Concord only started bullets flying, the revolution had already begun and it had nothing to do with guns.

I don't know why you post anything about a "free state" or "shall not be infringed" in this thread.
What has that got to do with guns? Specifically.

 

Exactly, why would the constitution provide an armed means to end itself when it provided peaceful means for self change?

Now your next statement contradicts your first.
The 2nd is part of the constitution and as it exists it shows that it can be changed by peaceful means.
If the government is corrupt, there are peaceful mechanisms in the constitution, and the laws engendered by it, to rectify the corruption.
If it is non representative then it isn't a democratic republic anymore and therefore the constitution and the 2nd don't apply anyway.

Jefferson is often quoted out of context.
“a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,” was a statement he made in regards to Shay's rebellion. At the time the constitution was being written and Jefferson feared conservatives would use the "little" rebellion to write harsh punishment into the constitution for anyone who ever dissented against the government. Note the little rebellion not a full fledged rebellion.
Daniel Shay was protesting taxation by Massachusetts and he formed a mob of about 1,500 men to storm the Springfield armory. Sound familiar?
However Continental Army General Benjamin Lincoln had called up a militia of well regulated, well trained, and battle experienced men who although outnumbered quickly killed four of the rebels and scattered the rest. Note the well regulated militia protected the governmental armory.
Shay's rebellion showed that the articles of Confederation were weak and needed to be rewritten. As it was being rewritten into the constitution Jefferson pleaded for restraint in that writing against any form of protest.

Jefferson believed that states had a right to put down rebellions with a militia, but that the punishment must not be so harsh as to repress any disagreement with the government.

 

At Concord, even though the British moved to take the arsenal, it was their arsenal, they were fighting an insurrection, not a war.
The British moved on Concord to put down an insurrection.
Concord occurred in April 1775. At that time it was a rebellion, or insurrection, not a war.
In August 1775 Britain declared the colonists “in a state of open and avowed rebellion.” Not a war, just as Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were not wars even though bullets were fired.

Independence from Britain wasn't declared until July 2, 1776, by something called The Declaration of Independence.
Until that time there was no state of war.

But let's look at your "The right to maintain your own free state is the reason your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Just what do you mean by infringed. Please explain what you think an infringement in relation to arms means.

 

Whomever the law allows.

 

You're asking the same question in a different way.
In my opinion.

Those who have been found to be mentally deficient by a court of law.
Those convicted of a felony that involves at least one year of imprisonment.
Those below a lawful age.
Anyone convicted of any hate crime.
A fugitive from the law.
Those with a physical addiction to drugs and alcohol. (Federal law includes marijuana but not alcohol, I would omit non addictive drugs such as marijuana and LSD, etc. and include alcohol)
Aliens except those in the country for legal hunting, firearm competition, foreign law enforcement agents, or other approved activities.
Those with a dishonorable discharge from the military.
Former citizens.
Anyone under a restraining order, and the ban should be permanent.
Anyone convicted of the illegal buying or selling of a gun, gun running, or illegal modifications of a gun. (I don't know if these would all be felonies)
Anyone who can't pass a background check which addresses the above.