Understanding the 2nd Amendment

[TEX]

As we all knew, there would be calls for strict gun control or an outright demand to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I am not a paid history authority, just a self taught history buff like most of you. There was a time way back when, that I did some heavy research and looking into what the founding fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment.

Full auto weapons and grenade launchers can be had with the right licenses and government approval, but the intent of the founders was that an able body adult male (and I am sure they meant women also) should have on hand a basic infantry weapon because they were in fact the militia. They force to withstand invasion and/or a corrupt and out of control government. They were not what some today want to call the National Guard which was organized in the 50s I believe. The National Guard and Reserve are basically part of the standing army - If you don't think so just ask any of the many who have been activated and sent to the middle east even tough we don't have a declared war.

The founders had to be smart enough to know that there would be more advances in infantry weaponry as they had certainly seen some in their own time - they were not fools.

A basic infantry weapon today would be an M4 with M203 attachment, and ammunition to run it, yet we settle for semi-autos unless you want to spend big bucks to go the full auto route.

Sad that we have settled.

[Soccerdad1995]

I thought standard issue for infantry nowadays was a non-automatic M4 with a "burst" setting instead of auto. I was issued a full auto capable rifle when I first enlisted in 1987, but by the time I left service in 1991 they were switching over to the "burst" version. But I'm not sure why we would limit the scope of weaponry to what today's infantry have. If the point is, in part, to stand ready to defeat a tyrannical government, then shouldn't we have the means to accomplish that purpose?

There were no tanks or airplanes at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted, and for that matter, there was only a very small standing army that would need to be defeated. If you were drafting the amendment today, with the same purpose in mind, then why wouldn't the people have a right to own hand grenades, land mines, tanks, anti-tank weapons, howitzers, and fighter jets? Granted, even with no restrictions, some of these things are so costly that most folks couldn't afford them. But maybe HOA's could pool funds and buy a tank or two for the neighborhood. Might be nice to see my HOA dues spent on something that is actually useful for a change.

The problem with all of this is that the 2nd amendment, and the constitution as a whole has "evolved" over time for all practical purposes. And I don't mean that it evolved through the method that the founders intended and allowed for (amendment). That would have led to an evolution that was more or less in line with the changing will of the majority of our citizens like we saw with the abolition of slavery, expansion of voting rights to women and then to young people and the flip flop on alcohol. Instead, we have allowed this fundamental law of the land to also evolve and change based on the personal whims and prejudices of our judicial branch. So certain rights are now much more powerful, and we even have brand new rights created out of thin air, like the right to not be offended, and the right to be free from religion. But on the flip side other rights are a mere shadow of what they were originally, including the RKBA. And all of this has been done without the need of the pesky amendment process.

Ain't life grand?