The 2nd Amendment crystal clear or as clear as muddy water?

[Atypical Liberal]

51. They're wrong.

Your “understanding” implies you “know” what it means, the problem is not everyone understands the 2A as you do. In fact I know many people who are pro gun who do not understand the 2A as you do. They defend there right to own hunting guns or hand guns for self protection but would stop short of allowing the average citizen to own military-grade small arms.

They're wrong.

The second amendment is a military clause. It is not about hunting, nor even particularly about self-defense, though these are both happy consequences of the second amendment.

The second amendment is about small arms appropriate for infantry use in a militia. They are about the civilians keeping and bearing weapons of war.

Whether or not everyone understands this or believes this is immaterial.

If you google "2A poll" there is a good chance you will find the results of an USA Today poll which states 81% feel we have the right to own/carry guns. But, start googling terms such as what does the 2A really mean and the answers will vary greatly.

There are a lot of people who talk to an invisible man in the sky, too. So what?

But when you ask should semi-automatic weapons be banded 63% agree. I included the link to several polls.

I'd be willing to be you that a majority of those 63% believe that semi-automatic weapons are fully-automatic machine guns.

You asked which places, in my opinion, the current off limit places such as schools and colleges, court houses, some businesses (this maybe should be the decision of the owner) are some of the places I have no problem not allowing citizens to carry guns.

If I can walk down main street with a gun, surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens, why can I not do it when I go to night school? Amy Bishop shot 6 people, killing 3 of them, in the very building where I have class 3 days a week. The rules didn't stop her.

Which circumstances, in my opinion, many of those already limited such as convicted criminals, mentally ill, I also would have no problem needing to have a permit to carry/own any weapon granted only after completing a training class similar as we do with cars.

You do not need a license to drive a car on private property. Nor do you need insurance or a tag.

I'm ambivalent on required training classes for CCW permits. CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime and their permits are hardly ever revoked, so I don't think there is a problem that needs solving there, but I bet you the test would be a joke just like the Hunter Safety test I took. Aced it with a 100%, of course.

Which guns, in my opinion, military-grade weapons should not be in the hands of the average citizen.

Then you misunderstand the entire intent of the second amendment. The whole point of the second amendment was to have an armed citizenry able to replace or at least counter a federal standing army. In order to do this they would, obviously, have to be armed with weapons appropriate for infantry use in such an army.

If the concern for owning guns is hunting and self protection then limiting the number of rounds that can be loaded at once is not unreasonable.

There are already hunting regulations in place that restrict ammunition capacity while hunting. As far as self-defense goes, a firearm is only useful as long as it contains ammunition. Thus the more ammunition it holds the more effective a weapon it is, and for longer.

Out of curiosity, how many rounds do you think are appropriate for a self-defense firearm?

Federal background checks and waiting periods are also reasonable.

We already have federal background checks for firearms sold through FFLs. Waiting periods have been shown time and again not to slow down criminals like Cho, Loughner, etc. etc.