Modern views of Second Amendment

Mr. Gagnon wrote a very good letter about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is just a single, very vague, sentence. It should have been better written because people have never been able to agree upon it's meaning. The original interpretation was that only white people who are U.S. Citizens can have guns. Other people were not allowed to be citizens or have guns. The interpretation has changed a few times, but it is still a matter of constant debate. Guns in 1791 were very primitive, but people knew that guns would continue to evolve and improve.

What does the amendment mean?

Can everyone have all the guns and accessories they want, sufficient to stand up to the Army? Can people only have certain types of guns and accessories? Can only the police and military have guns?

Mr. Gagnon touched upon a different interpretation. Maybe people should only be allowed to have all the guns and accessories they want of the types of things that were made in 1791 when the amendment was passed.

Private citizens cannot have anything created after 1791. That would ban automatics, semi-automatics, repeat action, cartridge-type bullets, magazines, bullet clips, bump stocks, scopes, lasers, etc.

Mass killing is impossible with a musket that has a very short range and needs 5 minutes to reload after every shot fired. Obviously, this interpretation will never fly, but it is an idea.

Oh, wait a minute. Lead balls are a biohazard.

Rich Lorimer

Streamwood