Technically, it has to do with the national defense. The founding fathers were obviously concerned that the British might return.
...more rights should enjoyed by law abiding citizens not less.
Okay, why then shouldn't "law abiding citizens" be allowed to possess guns? You seem to define someone who has a gun or wants one as ipso facto not law abiding.
Originally it had nothing to do with "self defense" rights and everything to do with the defense of the State, state here referring to an actual state and not the nation. Self defense was a later popular interpretation. Likewise, the notion that the Founders who wrote the Constitution wanted to keep the door open to armed revolution by the population is ridiculous. It was trying to put down Shay's Rebellion in 1786 that they threw out the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution, which provided a stronger federal government (well one at all, really) to do things like put down rebellions. It proved it could do that in 1791 with the Whiskey Rebellion.
More importantly as I see it, part of the reason these militias were seen as necessary was because they were used by Southern slave-holding states to put down slave revolts.
Here are some links, in progressive length:
I believe that people should have the right to say, handguns, even rifles and shotguns, but machine guns and shit, there's no reason for a civilian to have that. And of course, I believe in universal background checks, and I don't think you should be able to purchase a firearm if you are on the terrorist watch list.
Just for people's information (perhaps you already know this futilethwinds, but I'll tell anyone else who doesn't know), although machine guns are technically legal in the US you have to go through a raft of paperwork and pay a $200 tax to get one (it's a funny tax that you have to beg the government for permission to pay!). Some states outlawed them entirely, and it turns out your chief of police has to sign off on the paperwork and can just refuse for any reason at all. Then, because it's been illegal to make one for that market since 1986, the gun itself will more than likely cost several thousand dollars.
This does not stop the media from showing film of people firing fully automatic weapons while discussing the AR-15, which (though it looks like the full-auto M16 or M4, is only a semi-automatic) just to try to mislead you into thinking the AR-15 is a "machine gun" that needs to be banned.
Here's a bit more info for the anti-gun airheads: the vast majority of murders, robberies, and other gun-related crimes are committed with pistols and shotguns. These two types of weapons will not be banned in our lifetime, if ever. Possibly never.
What if your name was on the watch list?
Who decides whose name goes on the list?
How do you get your name off the list?
I don't need a gun. So whatever.
I don't need to be an atheist. Guess your right to be one can just kiss off.
Where do you live?
Do you have anything I want?
Hmmm...maybe you do NEED a gun.
Given a gun purchase can be denied for a felony conviction and there are a LOT of felonies out there that don't involve actually violating someone else's rights (e.g., drug "crimes"), I am not sure I approve of background checks, period. I know people who got caught with too much marijuana and now cannot own firearms.
IMO drug laws are like gun laws, they are all illegal, seems freedom in America is what the politicians say it is, not based on common sense.