?First, I would like lay-out the reasons for the Second Amendment. And second, in the tidbit(s) that follow, I will offer what God thinks about gun rights.
  The Second Amendment declares: “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.”
 
  There 2 interpretations of this amendment:
a.the Second Amendment is an individual right
b.the Second Amendment is a collective, protecting the right of a
state militia, but not individuals to possess arms
 
In this first tidbit, I argue the logic for the right of individuals to own guns. Following are six reasons I believe the Founding Fathers believed in individual gun rights.
 
1.The Framers understood this to apply to individuals.
 
2.The Bill of Rights was created to secure individual rights. The Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights, therefore the context of the Second Amendment is irrefutable evidence that it was designed to apply to individuals. Why then would the Framers place the Second Amendment in the context of the Bill of Rights—which I repeat, was designed to secure individual rights--if they intended to restrict its application to the government?
 
3.Allow me to return to the First Amendment for a moment, where the Bill of Rights records the ‘Freedom of Press’. Does this right apply only to the government? In other words, if the right to a ‘Freedom of the Press’ applies only to the government, then commentators on TitTok, Youtube, Facebook, and podcasts; not to mention NBC, CBS, New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc., are all violating the law! Why? Because none of these people or news organizations are government approved or sponsored! On the contrary, just as the ‘Freedom of the Press’ is an individual right, so also the Second Amendment upholds the right to own a gun, and is a government-sanctioned individual right.
 
4.The phrase “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, means just what it says, people are allowed to “keep and bear” arms. Second, are we to reject the clear definition of the word “keep” declaring that the “people” cannot “keep” their arms? If so, how are the words “people” and “keep” defined to support this position? In other words, does the word “people” not mean 'people'? Or, does the word “keep” not mean 'keep'? Third, does the word “militia” redefine the word “people”, in order for the meaning of the second amendment to apply only to a government-sponsored “militia”? Fourth, the word “bear” appears in the phrase along with the word “keep”, therefore, the second amendment declares that the “people” are allowed to both: a.keep AND b.bear arms. Obviously, the word “keep” is not synonymous with “bear”, or the phrase is willfully redundant. From the context of the second amendment the words are defined:
i.“keep”=retain possession
ii.“bear”=reveal/unveil at any moment necessary. Or, to carry; to
     convey; to support and remove from place to place1
Now insert these simple definitions into the phrase: “right of the people to keep and bear arms”!
 
5.What kind of tortured logic would allow the Framers to argue that the words “keep and bear” arms:
i.applies only to a militia, and not to the people in spite of the word “people” appearing  
   directly in the amendment?
ii.applies only when the militia is fighting government-approved battles. In other words,
   the militia must turn in their guns after a battle concludes.
iii.does not apply to “ the people”, which must include ‘citizens’; when the militia is
    comprised of citizens.
  
6.If those who were called militia were in fact the army (government military forces), then they would be called an army, and not a militia. Second, if it is true that the militia is not a government military force, and if it is true that only the militia could “keep and bear” arms, why would not every man join the “militia” in order to have the right to “keep and bear” their arms after they fought in a battle? Third, if one believes the word “militia” applies to a government-trained and supplied military, why did the Founding Fathers not use the word “army”(navy, Marines, etc), which is the word most often used to identify a government-run military?
   The point is, while it is not completely clear why the word “militia” was used in the Second Amendment, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is it could not have been the Framer's intent to apply the word “militia”2 to a military of the government because the word “army” would have been used instead. Remember, when the second amendment was debated and passed(1789), the U.S. had just won the war with Britain---which means the Framers understood the definition of an army! Point 7 further establishes point 6.
 
7.Although the Second Amendment is controversial because of the inclusion of the word “militia, points 2, 4, 5, 6, along with 7, are strong arguments that the word “militia” must apply to something other than an “army”, which I repeat, is normally used to identify government-sponsored troops. Why? Very simply, the word “militia” appears in the context of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which are rights directed to individuals!!!!
 
Why did the Framers advocate for individuals to possess guns?
i.To hunt for food
ii.Individual Self-defense. (Which I will cover in another tidbit)
iii.Foreign invasion. This should be an obvious reason because the War for Independence (Revolutionary War) was fought by American farmers, or ordinary people--not well-trained or experienced soldiers--who simply decided to fight for their freedom from Britain.
iv.Government tyranny.3  The Framers wanted individuals to be armed in case the government began attacking its own people.
 
 
 
1.webstersdictionary1828.com
2.In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison confirms that the Framers believed there was a difference between an ‘army’ and a ‘militia’: “This proportion would not yield in the United States an army or more than 25 or 30,000 men. To them would be opposed a militia amounting to near a half-million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia of such circumstance could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against British arms will be most inclined to deny the impossibility of it.”
  Notice that James Madison perfectly established the point that the militia were non-government individuals. He not only used the word “militia”, but he used the word “citizens” to make the point that they had rights: “a militia amounting to near a half-million of citizens with arms in their hands”, which means Madison believed the second amendment applied to the militia as individuals!!!!
2.The Framers believed it was possible for the government to attack the people. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 46: “Let a regular army fully equal to the resources of the country be formed, and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government, still it would not be going too far to say that the state government with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger.” “repel” what danger? The military danger the federal government poses to its people, i.e.regular citizens!

  The Democratic Party completely rejects the Judeo/Christian ethic (which is an euphemism for Christianity)!! They accomplish this through:
1.actively supporting every moral evil in our contemporary
culture
2.advertise/market those evils to the culture
 
For example, a short list of the Democrat Party’s sins includes:
1.Abortion
2.Racism, including antisemitism
3.Homosexuality
4.Gay Marriage. This constitutes the destruction of marriage!
5.Transgenderism
6.Every ‘other’ sexual perversion. Adultery, fornication, LBGTQii, etc.
7.Open Borders
8.Hatred of America, which means to reject:
             a.God’s call upon this nation
              b.Founding documents, such as the Constitution, Declaration,
                 Northwest Ordinance
  For example, rejecting free speech, freedom of religion, and promoting gun control
9.Atheism.
10.Communism/Socialism/Fascism. Or, any and all autocratic governments.
 
  I am literally shocked how any Christian can support the Democrat Party because of its agenda of promotion support for these and other blatant sins. Their support for abortion alone, the murder (1Jn3:15) of children in the womb, should be enough to inspire any/all Christians to reject the Democrat Party!!!  Remember, Jesus died for sin!!! Therefore, a holy God cannot involve Himself with even one sin, let alone the above list citing their concentration of abject evil!
 To be short, the root reason for such a concentration of sin is liberalism. While the Republican Party is up to 30% liberal, the Democrat party has adopted liberalism hook, line, and sinker, which I repeat, is THE primary reason Democrats have fallen into such debauchery!
  The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary definition of ‘liberal’ helps elucidate my point. The word ‘liberal’ has 9 entries. For example, the first two are:
1.Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.
2.Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.

However, the ninth entry is:
9.Licentious; free to excess.

According to Dictionary.com, the word “licentious” means: 
1.sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
2.unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
The word “lasciviousness” is mentioned in Galatians 5:19 as a work of the flesh, which means sin.
 
Selah!!! Please stop and rethink the definitions of licentious and lascivious!!!
 
  Moving forward. To further help make my point, the Bible contrasts sin with leaven.1 In other words, the nature of leaven in bread makes bread grow and fill out. Therefore, sin is exactly like leaven meaning whenever and wherever sin is permitted, it grows, fills, dominates, controls, and corrupts…ultimately ending with destruction!!!
  To tie all this up, the idea of ‘freedom’ is included in the definition of ‘liberal’. And, as Webster’s dictionary so eloquently describes, freedom is good, because God created freedom from His nature, Whom is good and does good2! Subsequently, God gave freedom to mankind as a gift. For example, in Genesis Chapter One God created everything including the Garden of Eden, and then told Adam he is free to eat of every tree in the Garden…except one: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! Therefore, although mankind is free, he/she does not have the freedom to sin.
  At the point of ‘freedom and sin’ is ‘THE’ problem for liberalism. For example, historically, in the 1960s, Classical Liberals3 argued morally and persuasively for the Civil Rights movement, i.e. the freedom of Black people, which obviously is good and moral. However, because they did not use the Judeo-Christian ethic (God’s absolute law) as their standard for determining good and evil, they had no way of understanding the consequence of man’s sin nature on freedom’s nature. In other words, they did not understand that freedom is not absolute, but had to be limited because of man’s sinful nature!!!
  Therefore, the contemporary culture’s license to sin, or the idea that man is free to do whatever he wants, was imperceptible as a tiny seed in historical Classical Liberalism! In other words, although the Classical Liberalism of the past possessed the Biblical principles of freedom, and the freedom of speech---over time, an uncontrolled freedom descends to its natural state: the pseudo-freedom of licentiousness or lasciviousness, climaxing in sexual activity without restraint!!!
 
Hence…the contemporary Democrat Party’s licentiousness/lasciviousness, which includes sexual license!!!!
 
  In conclusion, God never gave humanity unlimited freedom! Even before Adam sinned, God told him you may eat of every true…except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which forever condemns unlimited human freedom!4 On the contrary, Satan has used the Democrat Party to deceive people into believing the lie: “You are free to do whatever you want!” As far as I am aware, the only commandment of the Satanic Bible is: “Do what thou wilst!” For this reason, the Democrat Party has adopted, and now champions every cultural evil contrary to the Word of God and should be rejected by every Christian!!!
 
 
 
1.The Bible uses leaven in a good and evil context, but the principle remains the same: leaven grows and fills wherever its used(good- Mat13:33; evil-Ex23:18; good and evil-1Cor5:6-8).
2.Ps119:68
3.Today’s ‘Classical Liberals’ attempt to separate themselves from the free-for-all contemporary liberals by calling them: “Leftists”. However, this doesn’t work because Classical Liberals use the same liberalism, which is without limits apart from God’s word!!! I repeat, sin is present in humanity, therefore man’s freedom demands a limit!
4. Even God cannot break His word! (Num23:19)