Shooting at Las Vegas casino

Maybe. I'd bet there were a lot of Basement Rangers who didn't know about them until this coverage, or did and said, "Well I don't have a spare $150 right now, I'll get around to it" who found sudden motivation to go on and buy now.

I understand wanting to customize your AR. In its own way it's not a lot different from guys who own hot rods buying performance parts to bolt onto their small block Chevy. They really do make improvements in the handling and performance of the rifle, as far as controlling recoil, improving accuracy, a crisper trigger pull, etc. The difference is, of course, that these improvements make it a better killing machine.

 

Fear of lawsuits rather than good intentions

 

The word is 'infringed.'

As it has for a half century, the debate over common sense gun restrictions comes down to our definition of 'infringed.'

We will set aside for the moment the opening clause.


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.

 

Infringed. But, hey, who's gonna actually read the Amendment they're gonna defend, amirite?

 

Either reason would do. Off the shelves is the result, and I find that very desirable.

 

YF conflates it with the lesser-known Third Amendment, which addresses the lawfully permissible conversion of Tolstoy's classic to book-on-tape format.

 

We don't have a choice.

That's why I advocate repeal.

 

I'm surprised Constitutional Originalists don't consider it the most important assertion in the amendment - since it comes first, and then is bolstered by the second clause. The right to bear arms (another thing we struggle to define) arrives next to last.

And what did the word 'infringed' mean in 1791?

 

They say that it's the reason that the right exists, but not necessary to the existence of the right, and I tend to agree with that reasoning. You don't have to presently be in a "well-regulated militia" in order to exercise the right; rather, the possible necessity of assembling a well-regulated militia necessitates the existence of the right.

 

But as there is no longer a necessity to assemble a militia - local, state or national, well-regulated or otherwise - we could assert the underlying premise of the amendment no longer obtains. Then scuttle it with repeal.

But as you point out, the current mainstream reading of the 2A makes argument moot.

So as we ever must, we circle back to the definition of 'infringed.'

 

Seems that while the right may be absolute, the "arms" (type, amount etc.) could very much be adjusted to the amount, type required for someone to be secure in their person and property.

 

Banning, for example, a semi-automatic assault rifle doesn't necessarily infringe upon the "right to bear arms." It just infringes upon your ability to bear that particular arm.

To me, as long as there is some reasonable ability for citizens to own arms, the right is maintained.

It's just protection against a blanket ban.