You stated “The Second Amendment, however, consists of one twenty-six word sentence, two of which are “well-regulated.” Furthermore, it was written to protect a citizen’s right to own a single-shot, muzzle-loading musket with an effective range of fewer than 50 yards.

Would this reasoning apply to the other amendments, such that freedom of speech only applies when only those within earshot can hear it? Does freedom of the press mean only that which is printed using mechanical means without electricity? If it did someone could suppress your ability to express your point of view in the age of the Internet. One has to assume that the framers used language that would reflect technological advances.

Text of the Second Amendment “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.”

You highlighted two words “well regulated”. You did not define the term “arms” . You imputed a definition that it meant rifles and sidearms. However, “arms” can be expanded to include a variety of weapons: guns that fire shells with spent uranium casings to permit penetration of heavy armor, automatic weapons, Hellfire missles etc. I have no problems with the term “well regulated” and citizens are prohibited from owning military weaponry. The fact of the matter remains that less than 1% of all murders in the US are due to long rifles of any sort. (source: FBI Statistics). Thus, we have adequate regulations. Erosion of liberties do not occur with a single shot. Our liberties are eroded over time by a thousand cuts. Each time we impose an ill considered but “common sense” solution that imposes a restriction on people who have done nothing wrong we lose freedom.

Given that the US Government did not possess any arms of any higher technology than its citizens during the framing of the Constitution, then it could also be interpreted that the citizen’s right to bear arms could mean arms equivalent to that of the government. Our society has deemed that modern weapons of war are excluded in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, because AR 15 style semi-automatic rifles that use a 7.62mm or .223 caliber ammunition have been legal to own, then it stands to reason that such weapons are not deemed to be modern weapons of war. Banning them today because they were used in recent spate of violence against innocent persons is merely a knee jerk reaction to try to control individual behavior and is inconsistent with the fact that most killings result from handguns with magazines with fewer shells.

If, AR15′s are considered offensive weapons of war designed to mow down numerous human targets, why then do police departments have them? The police do not use firearms as offensive weapons yet, why then do they need AR 15 style rifles. Why do they (the police) need high capacity magazines for a single shooter? Obviously, there are bad guys out there with higher firepower. That’s why they have them. But are we as citizens not more threatened by the same bad guys when they think we are unarmed?

I do not own any weapons but I find the argument that AR 15′s only purpose is to inflict carnage on human subjects at odds with the fact that these “assault style” rifles are used by civilian authorities for “public safety” purposes. If police departments feel that they need such type weapons for defensive purposes then I have to believe that a need exists for the average citizen to maintain such a weapon for personal security. The police rarely interrupt a crime of violence in the making so it is warranted that a citizen have what he or she deems appropriate to meet whatever threat that may present itself.

It is not completely unthinkable that we as free society may need to possess the means to meet a threat to our way of life. We have an open and free society that allows freedom of movement, protection from governmental intrusion, and many other privacy elements that can be exploited by those that wish to inflict carnage and terror on the public for the purpose imposing their ideology on us. Is the threat imminent? No. Is it possible? Yes. Are there groups that openly acknowledge that they have such a goal? Yes. Just as Loughner, et al, kept the conspiracy secret, so do these groups. Without an armed citizenry, we put at risk the civilian control of police and military forces on our own shores.

Perhaps if we focused on crime control and not gun control we might stop more senseless killings. When gun control advocates focus their attention on increasing sentences such as 25 year prison terms with no time off for good behavior and no parole for those convicted of using any firearm in the commission of a crime then I will be more willing to support their ideas.

Stupidest and largest exaggeration of a stereotype I’ve ever read.
Fight with facts, not fiction.

No sign of bigotry there….

” The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

A pretty clear statement of the problem.

“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.”

The 2nd amendment doesn’t appear here to be looking to arm the citizenry for the purpose of hunting or sustenance, but to meet the threat posed by any threat to the security of a free State. We’re not talking about defense against rabbits here. We are talking about defending against tyranny et al. That means the firearmtechnology is not tied to the 1776 concept of weapons available but whatever might be required to maintain a “well regulated Militia.”

No discussion on preventing the bearer of arms from advancing their firearms via changing technology appears evident anywhere. If the oppressor has a bunch of tanks, the legitimate defenders of a free state have to have weaponry to overcome that armament. Single shot hunting rifles are not going to fit the bill. No pun intended.

How far is too far? Should the bearer of these arms be tied to a Militia? I’m not so sure. The way I read the amendment, it separates the the “well regulated Militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” with punctuation that does not tie these two concepts together. The algebraic statement “if A then B” does not appear to apply here.

But then again, what do I know? I’m not an American, mathematician, lawyer or grammar professor.

As my very old and wise Japanese Karate master said when he was introduced to me after he had graded me for my black belt:

“Ah, an interested beginner”.

I reiterate, what do I know?