Again, I said "traditional interpretation." In that interpretation the reference to a militia is an explanation, not a conditional clause. It's the equivalent to wording along the lines of "Congress can't restrict gun ownership." If that is your view then the Second Amendment makes the question irrelevant - you don't need a reason to own such a gun. In other words, the Second Amendment itself is the answer to the question of need. As an aside, one thing I find interesting about the current gun control debate is how few states have moved to do anything. Yes, New York passed some restrictions and others are talking about it, but there doesn't seem to be much real movement on the issue on the whole. And states have a lot more flexibility on gun control then the feds do. For example, Washington State has a democratic governor and a traditionally democratically controlled House (though the Senate is marginally Republican controlled at the moment), and the legislature is in session, but I haven't heard a thing about any changes in state gun laws.