Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've been an owner and shooter since 1965 and I don't find the current rules onerous. There's much manufactured outrage over this matter and most of it can be traced back to the NRA. (I was a member until 1990.)

[Jeanne]

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what the Framers meant it to say, although it was a hard fight to get the 2nd into the Bill of Rights...because everyone thought it so very unnecessary, as that right was common sense.

"Well regulated" means in the vernacular of the time, that the militia is to be well outfitted with up to date weaponry.

ARs and similar rifles are not automatic; one pull of the trigger equals one bullet shot. Private ownership of "machine guns" is a very costly and regulated affair. Illegally altering a gun to make it automatic is...illegal.

The over-riding reason the 2nd was included and the militia thought to be a necessary part of any nation was to do as the Declaration of Independence requires of its citizenry; to overthrow a government that is no longer adhering to the principles of a people seeking to govern themselves and to never again be under the foot of a Tyrant. It was not for hunting or for self-protection.

The Framers expected much from the citizens; "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it" to quote Ben Franklin. And...so the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights also carry responsibilities for the individual, the People.

A standing army was not the intent and was to be avoided for standing armies tend to do the bidding of those in power at the time. The militia is not the National Guard. The militia is the People. The 2nd is the right of the People, just as the 1st is the right of the People. Natural rights, not rights granted by governments or monarchs.

For statistics and facts, check out John Lott's work in his most recent book, "The War On Guns" and his earlier one..probably a website connected to it as well.

-Jeanne

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, follow strict interpretation when convenient, go with loose interpretation when that's convenient.

[Jeanne]

Why should you consider what I said to be loose interpretation? And...what is convenient about what I contend?

Perhaps you can elucidate.

-Jeanne

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why should you consider what I said to be loose interpretation? And...what is convenient about what I contend?  

Perhaps you can elucidate.

-Jeanne

You aren't familiar with the "loose/strict" interpretation argument with regard to the Constitution?

[Jeanne]

Why don't you explain it to me? That way we will each know exactly what is meant, as will any readers of this topic.

The following seems absolutely understandable to me:

"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."

It is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is explicit in its language that it "shall not be infringed."

-Jeanne

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Posting from a cell phone makes lecturing unlikely. Google is your friend.

[Pat Mustard]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because I'm pro-gun.

Fine so you place higher worth on your ability to own an unneccessary piece of equipment over the lives of other people. I suggest you take a long hard look at your personal morality.

First of all, you don't know whether or not that equipment is necessary or not. In certain instances it is, and that means that at least in certain instances, you're talking out of your ass.

Secondly, one can both value the ability to protect oneself and value the lives of others equally.

Thirdly, your willingness to cast aspersions because someone doesn't agree with your views is juvenile, especially when said aspersions are based on what is clearly a case of deliberately twisted words. If you want an honest discussion, you'll have to carry your share of the water, and if you don't want an honest discussion, perhaps you should be quiet and let the adults talk.

[KUSA]