1) The 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to allow for the differences that have arisen in today's modern society. The national guard is claimed to be the modern version of a state militia, but in all honesty the national guard is generally more loyal to the federal government then it is to the state government. Because of this change in what state militias are, the need for individual ownership of guns exist. The states must have the ability to create a force, even if it is weaker then the federal government, that could be used to oppose the federal government if need be. These forces do not need to be armed with fully automatic military weapons though because, if a state rebels it will simply need semi-automatic weapons to obtain the federal government and national guard's weapons within their state leveling the playing field. Furthermore, background checks and training should be required of any person who wishes to by a gun in order for the state to assemble a somewhat trained and reliable militia when need be. Because of how militias have changed, personal gun ownership must be sustained in order to give the states power.
2) If I had the final say on gun laws in the U.S.A. today I would require background checks and training for any person wishing to purchase a gun. I would also maintain the current restrictions on what types of firearms that can be owned should be maintained. I believe that if these restrictions were put in place then the power of the state would increase and the power of the federal government would weaken. The right to own a gun is not given to the citizens of the U.S. for individual benefit, it is given to the citizens of the U.S. in order to benefit the state that they live in.
