Isn’t it time to use common sense & honesty in evaluating the Second Amendment?

Wrong, you are dead wrong! The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for the right of the people to keep and bear arms against the threat of our own government infringing upon our rights to free speech, freedom of religion, taxation without representation and the like.

At the time of our revolution we revolted against England and King George who was our government of that time. Our Constitution was framed to prevent that from happening again.

Since our Armies and National Guard are Federal forces paid by the federal government they are paid to protect it from all enemies both foreign and domestic! That is where our Constitution gives us the right to fight back back if need be!

A lot of Jihadest gun privilege isolationists are sadly misguided about the clear intent that the "totally out of context crowd" thinks the 2nd amendment says to them, it's clearly intended to keep a well regulated militia armed in case the British crown ever tried to force taxation without representation, (much like the severe lack of representation that D.C. has foisted upon it's still taxed residents) upon the colonies.

I think we're long past any present-day threat of colonial invasion from the redcoats.

With this obvious fact in mind, it's rather obvious why the Jihadest death grippers refuse to change the 2nd amendment to reflect constantly revisionist demands that gun manufacturer and some gun extremists are convinced that the 2nd amendment was meant to enforce as a "god-given" right as opposed to a qualifying privilege standard whereby every gun owner needs to demonstrate:

1. - gun safety

2. - gun storage security

3. - mental stability

4. - reality-based threat assessment gun use, (this would be the hardest to enforce besides no. 3/5)

5. - fantasy threat elimination protocol

As long as most subjective interpretations by 2nd amendment absolutists readily assume that a militia means;

"a patriotic call to arms to instigate an anti-domestic policy insurrection/rebellion including, but not limited to treason and an overthrow at gunpoint of offending government officials",

then the real intent of the 2nd amendment will continue to be hijacked for personal political agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with colonial self-defense from foreign tax collectors.

It's abundantly clear that subjective interpretation from a wildly variable religious POV clouds the minds of most god, guns & ammo 2nd amendment absolutists.

You can't seriously believe the founding fathers believed technology would never advance and that the second amendment would only apply to muskets and cannons forever do you? And these were the military weapons of that time. Had the Bill of Rights been drafted now it would have protected machine guns and even RPGs. The second amendment has already been so watered down with the 20,000+ gun laws on the books. None of these gun laws have ever made anyone safer and to believe more of the same failed policy is the solution is completely ludicrous. Keep banning all of our freedoms until we have none, that doesn't sound like a country I want to live in. If you really hate freedom that much there are plenty of fascist or communist countries you could move to.

I didn't own any "military style assault weapons" until they started calling my AR-15 and Mini-14 one. This is the reason why I own them and been stocking up ammunition since 2009 because people, even elected politicians, believe the Constitution is outdated and I fear that one day I'm going to have to use them to protect my freedom from the same people who swore to uphold it against all enemies foreign and domestic.

the purpose of the second amendment is to provide citizens a way to resist government if it gets too big for its britches. before you go blabbering about tanks, think about the perception of government using military troops for domestic civilian pacification. the US government would INSTANTLY become the same as Iran or N. Korea. and of course, the government would be trusting the soldier in that tank would be willing to use it against fellow Americans.

The ultimate courtroom basically ruled the 2nd is desirable to non-public gun possession, and on an identical time that not something interior the 2nd prevented from there being rules and rules approximately weapons, fashions, and purchases.

As technology has advanced doesn't it make sense for all parties to have the advantage of it?? I mean would you take a knife to a gun fight,my guess would be only if you were very stupid...

Additionally using your logic we shouldn't be allowed to use this forum to express our ideas because it wasn't developed at the time the Constitution was written and wouldn't be covered by the !st amendment....

From 1915 to present over 170,000,000 unarmed and government disarmed innocent citizens have been slaughtered by their respective governments and still counting...need I say more.

No.

in regards to the 1st amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, how could they have envisioned the internet?

The problem is that you cannot trust the liberals