[TheWarriors]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."



That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

I don’t think you quite understand why the Second Amendment exists. Perhaps you would like to apply the same logic to all the other Amendments?