The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it's a blanket grant for anyone to be allowed to own a firearm, is actually recent (2008!). Before that, it was well understood that there are limits to the forms of firearm ownership that the 2nd Amendment grants.

There is nothing preventing us from going back to the older (IMO correct) interpretation.

>I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that we interpret the 2nd amendment differently. There is clear precedence for limits on arms ownership. It's just a question of where they should be.

One question that perhaps we should be asking is Should the right to bear arms include assault rifles or only lower power guns similar to what we’re available at the time of its writing? There seems to be general public agreement that the right to bear arms does not include RPGs or stinger missles, etc. Yet those are certainly arms. Why are assault riffles in the same category as shot guns?

I struggled for a long time with where I would draw the line here - I don't think it's reasonable for civilians to own nukes or other crazy weapons of warfare. I saw a suggestion that sat really well with me - civilians should be able to be just as armed as the police force. This does not mean I favor de-arming citizens or the police force.

Yes, Black and white is easy to agree on. Gray, not so easy.

Can you tell us more about your reasoning for drawing the line there? Please note I’m not critiquing your line, just curious about how you came to this opinion.

My opinion:

I don't have a perfect knowledge of the law. I'm also oversimplifying. Bear with me.

Back when the second amendment was created, it was entirely reasonable that citizens could arm themselves and realistically overthrow their policing force and government. It's a large part of how the US was able to gain it's independence.

I don't think that is reasonable today - weapons for waging modern warfare do more to infringe the rights of others when owned by civilians. Also, US citizens would not stand a chance in armed combat with the military.

I like drawing the line with a police force because I think police should be made up of citizens (not soldiers). Policing a population and national defense are totally different objectives that should not overlap. There should be a clear, consistent line where on one side of the line the police are deployed to enforce the laws of the locality and on the other side the military is deployed to protect the nation. If the police force deploys weapons that the military uses for national defense, that line is very blurry and citizens can be oppressed without the use of the military. It should be a very explicit, unambiguous action for a government to use military force against it's citizens.

A person that breaks the law by murdering someone and then taking a hostage is not a national defense concern and military tactics and weapons are not necessary.

A person that makes meth and sells it on the street, is not a national defense concern. It may be a concern to the society that this happens in, and the community should police this behavior (if it wants), but military tactics and weapons are probably not necessary here either.

There is a lot of grey area here. I'm sure there are edge and corner cases that are not so clear. I don't have all the answers. It does not bother me that G.I. Joe has tanks, grenades and automatic weapons. It very much bothers me that Jane the Street Cop could have semi-automatic rifles, flash grenades and body armor between 9-5, but I could not. To be clear, I don't want to de-arm the police.

Almost all guns are semi automatic.

So banning semi auto weapons, as you suggest, would be equivent to an almost total gun ban.

You are free to believe that, but you should realize that this is a very extensive ban.

Hmm. Not sure why you were down voted. I’m interested in hearing logical arguments. I have no idea if your statistics are correct for “almost all guns are semiautomatic”.

One impression I’ve had regarding recent 2nd amendment rights arguments is that we need guns for hunting, home protection, self protection, and protection from the government.

1. I’ve never met a hunter that insists on semi automatics for hunting. To many that seems un sportsman-like. 2. Shotguns are very effective for home protection against the most common types of home “invasion” since they don’t need perfect aim. They are not generally semi-Automatic. 3. I understand that for many, self protection may mean a hand gun. Sure some are semi-automatic. 4. If a modern government “wants you”, no amount of currently legal private arms will stop them regardless if they are semi-automatic.

So of those scenarios, only #3 has a strong argument for semi-automatic imho. And we don’t often see hand guns as the main tool in mass shootings (though they are clearly a tool in general crime related gun violence - gang shooting, robbery, demos tic abuse, etc).

I’m interested in logical arguments why the gun lobby argues against this idea. Note, I’m not saying I agree with the idea that guns are the best solution for 2 and 3. I do believe in responsible hunting. I have fired a number of different types of guns.

Given that all guns, and a large number of non-gun objects (such as vehicles or big rocks) can be effectively utilized to kill nontrivial numbers of people in a soft target situation: is it possible that a more effective intervention may be found somewhere in the fact that several dozen young American men/boys feel compelled to murder as many strangers as possible before commiting suicide each year?

This also seems to me, at the very least, to be a less intractable/objectionable avenue. Less media coverage would probably do more to ease this problem than the banning of some subset of firearm.

I'm British, so I'm not really concerned by it. The US is collectively losing its mind, on many levels.

To be fair, the European's and British, losing their mind on many levels as well. (I'm german)

It's a good thing that the crazy European, British, and Americans were around to counter those sane, rational Germans in the 1940s.

The US is not perfect, for sure! But don't let sensationalism in the media shape your perception of everything outside of Britain.

Well, it's a good thing that the countries are not tied to one another, Politically, Economically, Diplomatically, Socially. . .