Just put this post about the 2nd Amendment up on r/The_Donald, I thought you’d like it.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
In simpler terms, the Bill of rights are limitations on the Federal government designed to protect the People from abuse by that government. I hear all the time that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right" fulfilled by the National Guard. This cannot be the case because Title 10 of the United States Code grants the President the power to call up the states' respective National Guards to supplement the regular military. If the Federal government can own and fully control the National Guard, then the National Guard is not a limit to the government, and therefore is not a fulfillment of the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment exists to limit the Federal government by ensuring that the American People have the individual right of bearing and using force of arms for the defense of self and others.
So What Arms Does the 2nd Amendment Protect?
It is specifically designed to protect modern weapons that would be useful in the service of a militia. In 1939, the Supreme Court heard United States v. Miller to decide if the 1934 National Firearms Act infringed on the 2nd Amendment. The court found against Miller, stating:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
This is legaleeze for, "the gun is useless militarily, so the Constitution does not protect it."
If obsolete guns are not protected because they cannot be reliably pressed into service for a militia, then the inverse must be true. Modern firearms must be protected because a militia can form, fight, and win using them, Hughes Amendment be damned.
It's so funny arguing with lefty loonies sometimes. They insist that the 2nd Amendment only protects old flintlock muskets and AR-15s can be prohibited. I can't take them seriously because the 2nd Amendment is designed such that flintlock muskets CAN be banned, but AR-15s, semi-automatic handguns and other modern weapons cannot be. Silly leftists, always believing the opposite of reality.
Welcome to the Real World
While beta lefties are off in fantasy land trying to make the rest of us as weak as they are, every single day citizens exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights for personal defense. Just a few examples from the past week: