By the late 18th century, the colonialists' general lack of trust of any distant, centralized oversight resulted in the powerless government of the Articles of Confederation. Without the power to collect funds owed by the states, congress floundered and the states' focus shifted toward their individual self interests including alliances with foreign powers. Without a new constitution with a strnong central government, the Republic was clearly doomed. But when it came time to approve the proposed constitution, the States' delegates were concerned it granted too much control to Congres, and, despite the system of checks and balances designed to prevent domination by any one branch of government, the delegates demanded that certain rights be reserved for the states and the people and be delineated in a the Bill of Rights.
Among the many concerns addressed in the Bill of Rights was the founding fathers recognition of the importance of empowering Congress “to raise and support armies” and “to provide and maintain a navy,” and the possibility that an agressive leader could manipulate a permanent standing army to oppress the people, or possibly seize control of the government. The solution was to created a Right to Bear Arms "for the purpose" of each state maintaining a well regulated militia as a deterant against federal tyrrany enforced by the standing army.
With its precise wording, supported by its history, Second Amendment clearly grants an individual right to bear arms so that each state is able to organize and maintain a citizen militia. It does not make any statements about bearing arms for hunting, target practice, self defense, in collections, or for criminal activities, pro or con, and offers no resolution to the current debate. As alarming as it may be, gun ownership vs gun control is not a constitutional issue, unless, of course, you belong to a well regulated militia.
