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

[SoutherDem]

55. Reply

In 1789 there wasn't a big difference between hunting, self defense and military weapons and while I won't disagree the 2A is a military clause, with the regular armed force and national guards being armed and either on duty or ready to be called to duty we no longer have a "civilian" militia, except for maybe the ones preparing to take up arms against the U.S.

I referred to the internet just as examples of how there are diverse opinions.

No, I understand semi-automatic means pull the trigger one and you get one round, fully automatic pull the trigger once and it shoots until it is out of ammo or the barrel melts. I am NOT against semi-automatic weapons. When I say military grade I do not mean semi-automatic, I mean fully automatic. That said, I referred to the polls to emphasize that although the majority of Americans feel we should be able to own/carry guns that stops at some point. The fact that many don't understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic doesn't change the intent of the people as you have implied they are thinking fully automatic. Quite frankly if everyone did know the difference and the polls said fully automatic the % may go up greatly, but down for semi-auto.

I live in Birmingham so I am familiar with the Amy Bishop case and I understand rules/laws don't stop all crime, but I am not sure if allowing guns on the UAH campus would have made any difference. However, I have worked for a post secondary school for 8 years and I can tell you some of the students I would trust with a gun, others I would not. I am sure you are a responsible gun owner, know the safety rules, and from time to time go somewhere to safely practice so that if you ever do need to defend yourself or others you will do so correctly. My concern are those who buy a gun, not knowing the first safety rule of the gun, have shot it only once using less than one box of ammo then thinking they are the Lone Ranger who is going to save the day.

I guess on your private property go for it. And as to training classes, they shouldn't be a joke, nor the test. But, like I said before my concern are those who don't know how to safely carry and use a gun.

Yes the original intent may have been to replace or counter a federal standing army. If you are talking about a foreign country attacking the U.S. that is what the Armed Forces and National Guard was designed to do. I hope you were not taking about standing against our government, but if our country failed as we know it and it came to that then we most likely would need artillery, and planes also because if circumstances degraded to the point that our military was attacking our citizens then they would be using any and every weapon to there disposal.

As to the number of rounds. I really don't have a magic number. I am sure somewhere someone ran out of ammo while defending themselves, but I would guess that is extremely rare. But, I would say anything over 20 if I have to pick a number.

Yes, background checks don't stop everyone, but they do stop some. Waiting periods are only a cooling off period who knows how many they may have stopped.

I would like to add a couple more things;

As cases are brought before the Supreme Court, no matter the subject, often there is a debate whether the Constitution is a "living or static" document. Should we take the intent of the signers and apply it to today's situations or use the 1789 standard. Thus far the Supreme Court has done both or better said some of the justices use one and some use the other and occasionally they flip-flop. But either way here is some "food for thought". It could be argued that since we no longer have militias as we knew them in 1789 then the military purpose of the 2A no longer applies and if the purpose to keep and bear arms was military the 2A no longer applies at all. It could also be argued that the signers had no concept of how weapons would progress, that they were thinking nothing beyond what they had that day so the right stops with the technology of 1789. Like wise it could be argued that since today infantry has shoulder launched rockets and mortars they should be in the average citizens hands. My point is even if you are 100% right as to what the 2A means and the founding fathers intents were exactly as you say that doesn't necessarily mean that is how the Supreme Court will interpret the 2A in the future nor how the American People interpret it.