What I've always wonders as an attorney is - where are there any special rights concerning guns in the Constitution?
Here's the Second:
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.
No mention of guns. Arms, sure. Of course "Arms" would include guns, but also knives, swords, spears, grenades, rockets, cannons, bombs, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles, rpg .... you get the idea.
Now - as far as I know, there are no Second Amendment supporting politicians who claim that we cannot ban people from owning grenades. Ban outright. No exceptions for private owners. Right?
So, if we can outright and completely ban one category of "Arms" and be okay dokey with the Second, why would any certain category receive special protections? If we acknowledge that Joe Bob can't have an RPG, how is his M-14 protected by the same provision when its says nada about specially protected categories of "Arms"?
Like I said - it doesn't say a word about guns.
The Second talks about militias b/c its is talking about weapons of war when it says "Arms." The expectation was that state militias would be able to resist tyranny - i.e. effectively wage war against federal power. So it preserved state rights to own military arsenals.
...but no one expected Joe Bob to be able to resist Red Dawn style. We may be that stupid today, but they damn well knew then that joining together we barely defeated a foreign ruler. No one was under the delusion that freedom was protected by individual gun owners.
Can anyone explain where the Second protects specifically gun ownership?