The 2nd Amendment: What I read into it.

           This weekend was a bit insane.  It started off with duty on Saturday.  That went well until midnight when I got woke up to be told to go back to sleep.  Same thing happened again about 2 hours later.  Then around 3:30 I got woke up yet again to let someone into an office.  Needless to say, I was worn out by the time I got home Sunday.  I got about 3 hour of sleep before I woke up.  Then around 2pm my wife noticed the toilet was draining slowly.  After a bit of trouble shooting, I realized I was going to have to crawl under the house to fix it.  Since it was already dark out and I really didn't feel like going under the house at the time, I decided to put it off until this afternoon.  In all, the weekend wasn't all that great.
            On to the meat of the blog.  Today, I want to address an article I found on my local news site (KOMO news if you want to know).  It was about an anti-gun lobby holding a vigil.  The article was interesting on its own, but the comments following it really brought to light an interesting mix.  The majority of the comments (9 out of 10) were pro-2nd amendment.  This makes me wonder if the anti-gun movement is a majority movement or just something that a minority is trying to push on the majority.  That is beside the point though.  The real interesting part of the entire thing was the politicians stance. 
             To quote, "U.S. Representative Jim McDermott, (D-WA),  whose colleague is Gabby Giffords, said certain guns should be banned.
             "The whole issue of these clips that will shoot 33 bullets in an instant, you don't need that if you're hunting, you don't need that, that's only for war or terrorism, and I think they ought to be banned," he said."
             The funny thing is, the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with defending one's rights against a tyrannical government.  I may not be a Constitutional lawyer, but if you read the constitution, study the revolution and historical era, it seems pretty obvious, why the second amendment is in place.  I am sure there are those that will refute some of this, but the fact is that the second amendment wasn't put into place to protect hunters and hunting, but to protect the people from their government and each other.  It reads, "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."  The framers realized that without the privately owned guns, there would have been no revolutionary war.  This is why the second amendment reads arms, not guns or firearms.  It was meant to include any weapon needed to fight a war so that the citizens had the means to defend themselves and reclaim their government from a corrupt and/or tyrannical leader. 
               If you follow this thought then you have to ask about the word militia.  The idea behind this was in the definition of militia.  According to webster-dictionary.org this definition is: "In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in the military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies."  With a bit of basic understanding, you can say that you are a part of the militia once you have signed up for selective service since you are considered available to serve and have not yet been considered incompetent to serve.
                To limit weaponry to only that needed for hunting spits in the face of the second amendment.  I enjoy hunting, but the second amendment in no way, guarantees the right to hunt, only the right to keep and bear arms.  In itself, that phrase is powerful.  It ensures you have the right to buy, hold, obtain ammo for, and care for your arms.  It ensures you have the right to carry, transport, load, fire, and show your arms.  It means that, sense the word arms is used, these arms may include, rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, cannons, howitzers, tanks, rocket launchers, missiles, etc.  Look up the definition of arms and you will find that it is pretty broad.  Do I think I should have an M1 Abrahms in my drive way?  No, but I believe I have the right to it based on the definitions.  Besides, you have to be able to afford the weapons as well.
            Which begs the question, what, exactly, infringes on ones rights.  Does making it harder to obtain infringe on my rights?  Does a requirement to register my arms infringe on my rights?  What does that mean?  I don't believe making you register your arms infringes on your rights.  You are still allowed to keep and bear those arms.  Making it harder to get a weapon does.  Think of it this way, if what you have to do to get that weapon is more than it takes for you to get a drivers license, it infringes on your rights to bear arms.  This is especially pointed since a drivers license is not a right.  Could you imagine if you had to have a 30 day waiting period every time you went to buy a car?  Or better yet, a 30 day waiting period every time you went to renew your license.  Take a look at what you have to do in Chicago to own a gun.  Now replace the word Gun with car in that list of requirements and claim that it doesn't infringe on you.  "Cars aren't the same as guns," you say.  You're right, you have a right to keep and use guns.  You don't have a right to a car.
            Wow, I just went off.  I guess I had better end this.  I enjoy reading your opinions on this and would appreciate any insight you may have.  If I am wrong in something, please let me know as I am not above admitting when I am wrong. 
             Thank you for reading and, as always, have a great day.