If the US does ban guns, they're going to have to compensate individuals for the confiscation. Money is going to have to flow (And it will be very VERRRY expensive)
Good thing that scenario is unlikely
I'm not sure if the US government has that obligation. The Constitution established the elastic clause to say that whatever needs to happen can, and in some cases, will happen.
Yeah its both, the 2nd amendment is a lot more than just appears to the eye
Swat 3 has articulate the matter with decent accuracy, moderate length, and appropriate concern. Additionally, it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the laws. This supersedes the states, and certainly supersedes individual opinions such as yours as granted in the supremacy clause. Breaking up the second amendment, it says that first of all, the purpose of gun ownership is contingent upon the security of free states (referring to the states that comprise the US) that is to rely on the use of militias. The tradition of militias lasted through the mid 19
th century, but then became obsolete as the United States Army became centralized in the later part of the century. By the 20
th century, militias are obsolete. Programs such as the National Guard take over this niche, but they serve the federal government, not the state governments. Due to conditions in the second amendment, the amendment, when the militia becomes obsolete, this amendment becomes null, also becomes obsolete. From a personal standpoint, the second amendment needs to be revisited and revised to fit meaningful objectives with the needs of today in mind. The latter half says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, which is a strong statement. It can be interpreted three ways—A) Individuals are given the conditional right to bear arms given that they are registered or enlisted with the state militia, B) that the amendment was designed to guarantee the right to bear arms until the amendment had ran its course and became obsolete, pending a revision, or C) That the United States Army is illegitimate and that militias were the true intended protectors of the nation and the states (This has proven obsolete and dangerous during the civil war, which prompted the need for union and the depreciation of militias). Pairing the latter with the elastic clause in Article I, it implies that the federal government is at liberty to determine what the fate of an individual's right to firearms is once the second amendment "expires". However, the government has been lenient as of late to define the role of the second amendment and in its enforcement.
You're right that it is more than meets the eye, but in order to make that statement, you must
strictly work within the parameters of the constitution, not adding any language or interpretations from outside of it, and also take supreme court decisions on the matter of concern as law, because the supreme court is granted the power to define this as law.
