The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution so that the people could overthrow a government if it became oppressive.

That being said, at the time, there was scant difference between what the best armies had for weapons and what a farmer might have.

In both cases, the muskets were nearly the same.

This was the case until the machine gun was invented. I accept the premise that the Founding Fathers never envisioned that our own government would be as well armed as it is.

The Second Amendment was clear at the time, and it is today. The citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms. If I was a Supreme Court judge, I’d have to side with the Constitution.

But is it sensible? The truth is, the Second Amendment was abridged many years ago, when machine guns became illegal. Same for tanks and missiles.

Many think it is sensible to abridge the Second Amendment in those cases; the real fight today is over where the boundary is drawn, not whether the Second Amendment is forged in steel.

I’m torn, in that I instinctively support the right to own guns. I don’t believe that banning anything will end people’s propensity to violence. You can’t regulate intentions of the insane, but limiting the tools they use is perhaps possible.

As for defending against tyranny, it’s too late to stop the government from being out of control, so regulating clips and assault rifles won’t make a difference in that equation. The government has air support and miniguns.

As for criminals, full automatic guns have been heavily regulated for years, and with mostly good results. Empirical evidence shows that the gun ban has worked.

My common sense says assault weapon limitations, in the context of today’s society, make sense.

Jacob Underwood

Cornville

Copy the Story Link