When you read the second amendment do you see........?

Question

that its is pretty broad about who should be allowed to own guns, or what? What should the limitations be if any?

Bill of Rights
Amendment II

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.

Ah, but you see Carl the Amendment doesn't say the rights of a militia to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necesary.

Answer 1

Bostonian is right, with a thorough analysis of the scholarly debate.

There are two questions here, though. Bostonian talks about whether regulation is reasonable... that's not really an issue, because even if the Second Amendment WAS an individual right, it wouldn't be unlimited... just like the First Amendment speech right is not unlimited (you can't libel someone; you can't falsely shout fire in a theater; you can't sell child porn), the Second Amendment "firearms" right would not be unlimited.

So, the first issue is the threshold one--does the Second Amendment apply to individual gun ownership _at all_. This has been the topic of the scholarly debate, and your analysis must discuss one crutial fact:
The introductory clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
What does this mean? One of the canons of statutory construction is that you can't read out langauge as mere surplusage. If the Framers really meant to provide an individual right to keep all sorts of firearms, they would have drafted "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. But they added this very strangely worded phrase, discussing both the "militia" and noting that it must be "well-regulated" and is "necessary to the security of a free state." Does that give us a better idea of who "the people" are, at least in this context? It's an open question.

No doubt there are compelling arguments on both sides, but I'm not sure that if the Supreme Court recognized a Second Amendment gun right that much would change. Other than an outright ban on non-automatic handguns, rifles, or shotguns (which was what was happening in DC), all of the other current gun regulations would probably pass any "well regulated" test, or any sort of balancing test that the Supreme Court would fashion to apply the Second Amendment. The Court's not going to say that the Second Amendment means that everyone can own automatic weapons, land mines, machine guns, armor piercing bullets, etc. They're not going to say that it's unconstitutional to deprive felons of their rights to bear arms, or that reasonable licensing programs aren't permissible. So we're back to where we started.

Answer 2

This has been the subject of scholarly and other debate for centuries and will continue to be. However it's interesting to note that there has NEVER been a Supreme Court decision that stipulated that the 2nd Amendment every granted an unfettered right to bear arms on ordinary citizens.

To understand what the framers of the amendment were thinking about you must put yourself in their time and place. Each state had their own State Militia (commonly accepted as today's National Guard) comprised strictly of volunteers for the most part. Each Militiaman was required to provide his own weapons. The concern was that a State or the Federal government could dismantle an unwanted (but otherwise legal) militia by banning the ownership of weapons. That, in my opinion, was what the framers of the 2nd Amendment were concerned about and was the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

So, what does this all mean in the modern context? Well, since the Supreme Court has yet to rule one way or another it's down to the States to decide what is legal within their borders.

Personally I don't believe in blanket bans on ownership of guns. It doesn't work. And although law-abiding citizens might generally comply, criminals do not. Gun ownership is largely banned in NYC but street criminals still get their hands on guns. The only difference is that they are more expensive on the street than say in Kansas City, MO which has no such blanket ban. Other than the price, anyone who wants one can get one in either city easily enough.

What I do support is reasonable controls on the trafficing and ownership of guns. Licensing, registration, and minimim training are reasonable requirements. Restricting sales to law-abiding citizens is reasonable. Restricting sales to those through licensed arms dealers is reasonable. Even requiring liability insurance for owners is reasonable. Limiting the number of guns is not reasonable. Requiring exhorbitantly high fees is not reasonable.

It's no different than owning and operating a car. You need to be licensed, you need to register it, you need to have minimum liability coverage, and ownership must be traceable. Both are extremely dangerous in the hands of untrained persons and when either is used in a crime we need to be able to trace them back to the owner.

Answer 3

Actually "A well regulated militia,*** of a free state" now adays provides the arms for the militia. Called a State National Guard unit.

And if you are a member, have been a member or are willing to be a member and trained to use the weapons I have no problem with anyone having reasonable arms, (except convicts who have misused arms).