CDZ Guns Tanks and Nucklear Weapons. The second amendment.

[GaryDog]

Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.

LWers believe the Constitutional grants us rights. What they don't understand is that we already have all of our rights and the Constitution limits government. Anyone who reads and understands the controversy of surrounding even writing the Bill of Rights has an understanding of our unalienable rights.

SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.

Read the Federalist Papers.

Those aren't binding law.

 

[GaryDog]

SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.

An unalienable right doesn't need SCOTUS to back it up. Do you really need a ruling by SCOTUS to have a child? Eat? Defend yourself?

The only reason SCOTUS ruled on this was because Nanny Staters were attempting to disarm citizens "for their own good".

Eating and having children are comparable to owning a gun? Come on.

And don't look now, but some states require retreat before defending Yourself with force.

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.

LWers believe the Constitutional grants us rights. What they don't understand is that we already have all of our rights and the Constitution limits government. Anyone who reads and understands the controversy of surrounding even writing the Bill of Rights has an understanding of our unalienable rights.

SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.

Read the Federalist Papers.

Those aren't binding law.

Original Intent
The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

Sometimes called original understanding, originalism, or intentionalism, the theory of original intent is applied by judges when they are asked to exercise the power of Judicial Review during a legal proceeding. (The power of judicial review is the power of state and federal courts to review and invalidate laws that have been passed by the legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

Not every judge adheres to the theory of original intent, and many adherents fail to apply it in a uniform and faithful manner. Judges who do attempt to apply this judicial philosophy generally agree that only through its application may courts be bound by the law and not their own views of what is desirable. They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution.

Original Intent

I hold to Original Intent as any other approach waters down and erodes the Constitution and our freedoms.

Besides you're wrong, show where SCOTUS, prior to the 20th century, took your view. Oh and anything you link must have been a case brought to SCOTUS that was argued and decided based on the Second Amendment, not a side opinion relative to the case being argued and decided based on another Amendment.

 

[Divine Wind]

Eating and having children are comparable to owning a gun? Come on.

And don't look now, but some states require retreat before defending Yourself with force.

Dude, those are examples of rights that don't need SCOTUS to prove you have them.

Gay marriage: do gays have a right to marriage? Yes. Does it take SCOTUS to give them that right? No. Like your gun/SCOTUS example, it takes SCOTUS to knock down laws blocking those rights. Same for abortion. SCOTUS make abortion a right or does it simply block laws denying that right? Think about it.


Gary: Does government grant you your rights or do you have them regardless of government? Straight answer, please.

 

[hunarcy]

question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

and can americans have private nuclear weapons ?

nuclear weapons are arms, so acording to the 2. amendmend every american has the right to have nuclear weapons

every other country in the world thinks thats insane

And, in 1787, this argument would have been made using a quill pen and parchment. So, according to your theory, you shouldn't be allowed to use a computer to make such a stupid argument.

 

[320 Years of History]

I hold to Original Intent...

Just to make sure I am certain that what you wrote is what you meant, I have below presented a brief discussion of the orthodoxy of original intentionalism.

Original Intent Approach to Constitutional Comprehension

Many of the issues explored during ratification continue to be debated today. For instance, the issue of interpreting the Constitution by considering the intent behind its provisions has been recast in modern times as the theory of originalism. One of the early assertions of this doctrine was known as “intentionalism,” or original intent, a theory which envisioned that all laws should be applied based on the subjective intent of the Constitution’s authors. Thus, for instance, since the authors of the Constitution would be the Founding Fathers who drafted it, intentionalism theory would involve studying the writings of those men at the Philadelphia Convention and their relevant outside writing.

One of the early proponents of intentionalism was Judge Robert Bork, a former judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Bork recognized that the application of an original intent standard would not always be easy. For instance, the application of any theory of Constitutional intent must deal with the problem of generality. Judge Bork recognized that the framers, because they were using terms that could have broad application, could not have anticipated all possible fact patterns in which a particular constitutional provision could be applied. Thus, Judge Bork suggested that the task of an intentionalist judge is not to determine what the Founding Fathers would have felt about a particular application of the Constitution. Rather, a court seeking to interpret a Constitutional provision would need to state a core value, a major premise, that the framers intended to protect, and then supply the minor premise necessary to protect the constitutional freedom at issue. In this manner, a judge can apply the Constitution to unforeseen facts without forgoing adherence to the intended constitutional intent of the subject provision.

One such example is determining the meaning of the term “equal protection” as found in the Fourteenth Amendment. An originalist could easily ascertain that the intention of the 14th Amendment, based on the expressed intent of the drafters, was to protect black citizens from having a state limit or deny their individual rights. However, most people would agree that this would be an unnecessarily limited view of the use of the broad term “equal protection.” Thus, according to Judge Bork, a court should apply the amendment “neutrally,” so as to enforce the core idea of racial equality, regardless of which race is being discriminated against. Thus, if one were to extend Judge Bork’s reasoning, one could argue that the decision in a case such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, was wrongly decided. According to Justice Bork’s theory, such a decision would be based, not on policy preferences, but on purely judicial grounds.

That leaves the problem, however, of just how high the level of generality for the term “equal protection” should be set. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that, in some cases, it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to discriminate based on gender. Judge Bork argues that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend that the Equal Protection Clause would extend to laws which treated women differently from men, and that there is no other legitimate basis on which to extend such constitutional protections beyond race and ethnicity.

Judge Bork admits that the language of the 14th Amendment, broadly written to prevent a state from “deny[ing] any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law,” does not explicitly contain such a limitation. However, he points to a failure of the Court to adequately explain why some groups beyond race and ethnic groups would be included, while others would be denied. According to Judge Bork (and echoed years later by Justice Scalia), the problem of levels of generality is solved by choosing a level of generality no higher than that which interpretation of the words, structure, and history of the Constitution fairly support.

The theory of original intent, however, quickly came under critical scrutiny by other commentators. The first criticism was that the Constitution was drafted after a good deal of political compromise, so that it would be nearly impossible to ascertain a single collective intent of a large group of individuals, each of whom may have had different intentions. Second, as discussed above, historical evidence could be viewed as suggesting that the framers in fact intended for future generations not to interpret the Constitution according to their intent, but according to the “common sense meaning” of the document. Thus, for instance, the framers’ desire to keep the records of the proceedings of the Convention secret could be seen as intended to prevent those proceedings from being used in interpretation.​

 

[Ringel05]

I hold to Original Intent...

Just to make sure I am certain that what you wrote is what you meant, I have below presented a brief discussion of the orthodoxy of original intentionalism.

Original Intent Approach to Constitutional Comprehension

Many of the issues explored during ratification continue to be debated today. For instance, the issue of interpreting the Constitution by considering the intent behind its provisions has been recast in modern times as the theory of originalism. One of the early assertions of this doctrine was known as “intentionalism,” or original intent, a theory which envisioned that all laws should be applied based on the subjective intent of the Constitution’s authors. Thus, for instance, since the authors of the Constitution would be the Founding Fathers who drafted it, intentionalism theory would involve studying the writings of those men at the Philadelphia Convention and their relevant outside writing.

One of the early proponents of intentionalism was Judge Robert Bork, a former judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Bork recognized that the application of an original intent standard would not always be easy. For instance, the application of any theory of Constitutional intent must deal with the problem of generality. Judge Bork recognized that the framers, because they were using terms that could have broad application, could not have anticipated all possible fact patterns in which a particular constitutional provision could be applied. Thus, Judge Bork suggested that the task of an intentionalist judge is not to determine what the Founding Fathers would have felt about a particular application of the Constitution. Rather, a court seeking to interpret a Constitutional provision would need to state a core value, a major premise, that the framers intended to protect, and then supply the minor premise necessary to protect the constitutional freedom at issue. In this manner, a judge can apply the Constitution to unforeseen facts without forgoing adherence to the intended constitutional intent of the subject provision.

One such example is determining the meaning of the term “equal protection” as found in the Fourteenth Amendment. An originalist could easily ascertain that the intention of the 14th Amendment, based on the expressed intent of the drafters, was to protect black citizens from having a state limit or deny their individual rights. However, most people would agree that this would be an unnecessarily limited view of the use of the broad term “equal protection.” Thus, according to Judge Bork, a court should apply the amendment “neutrally,” so as to enforce the core idea of racial equality, regardless of which race is being discriminated against. Thus, if one were to extend Judge Bork’s reasoning, one could argue that the decision in a case such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, was wrongly decided. According to Justice Bork’s theory, such a decision would be based, not on policy preferences, but on purely judicial grounds.

That leaves the problem, however, of just how high the level of generality for the term “equal protection” should be set. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that, in some cases, it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to discriminate based on gender. Judge Bork argues that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend that the Equal Protection Clause would extend to laws which treated women differently from men, and that there is no other legitimate basis on which to extend such constitutional protections beyond race and ethnicity.

Judge Bork admits that the language of the 14th Amendment, broadly written to prevent a state from “deny[ing] any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law,” does not explicitly contain such a limitation. However, he points to a failure of the Court to adequately explain why some groups beyond race and ethnic groups would be included, while others would be denied. According to Judge Bork (and echoed years later by Justice Scalia), the problem of levels of generality is solved by choosing a level of generality no higher than that which interpretation of the words, structure, and history of the Constitution fairly support.

The theory of original intent, however, quickly came under critical scrutiny by other commentators. The first criticism was that the Constitution was drafted after a good deal of political compromise, so that it would be nearly impossible to ascertain a single collective intent of a large group of individuals, each of whom may have had different intentions. Second, as discussed above, historical evidence could be viewed as suggesting that the framers in fact intended for future generations not to interpret the Constitution according to their intent, but according to the “common sense meaning” of the document. Thus, for instance, the framers’ desire to keep the records of the proceedings of the Convention secret could be seen as intended to prevent those proceedings from being used in interpretation.​

Yup, as you have just shown there's rational for all sides of the argument. One of the biggest challenges (in my humble but accurate opinion) is that the vast majority of lawyers/judges do not have a solid background in lexicon of linguistics, cultural anthropology or history for that matter. Lawyers and judges, like everyone else in the world has a tendency to interpret everything based on their world view hence the number of differing arguments.

 

[320 Years of History]

I hold to Original Intent...

Just to make sure I am certain that what you wrote is what you meant, I have below presented a brief discussion of the orthodoxy of original intentionalism.

Original Intent Approach to Constitutional Comprehension

Many of the issues explored during ratification continue to be debated today. For instance, the issue of interpreting the Constitution by considering the intent behind its provisions has been recast in modern times as the theory of originalism. One of the early assertions of this doctrine was known as “intentionalism,” or original intent, a theory which envisioned that all laws should be applied based on the subjective intent of the Constitution’s authors. Thus, for instance, since the authors of the Constitution would be the Founding Fathers who drafted it, intentionalism theory would involve studying the writings of those men at the Philadelphia Convention and their relevant outside writing.

One of the early proponents of intentionalism was Judge Robert Bork, a former judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Bork recognized that the application of an original intent standard would not always be easy. For instance, the application of any theory of Constitutional intent must deal with the problem of generality. Judge Bork recognized that the framers, because they were using terms that could have broad application, could not have anticipated all possible fact patterns in which a particular constitutional provision could be applied. Thus, Judge Bork suggested that the task of an intentionalist judge is not to determine what the Founding Fathers would have felt about a particular application of the Constitution. Rather, a court seeking to interpret a Constitutional provision would need to state a core value, a major premise, that the framers intended to protect, and then supply the minor premise necessary to protect the constitutional freedom at issue. In this manner, a judge can apply the Constitution to unforeseen facts without forgoing adherence to the intended constitutional intent of the subject provision.

One such example is determining the meaning of the term “equal protection” as found in the Fourteenth Amendment. An originalist could easily ascertain that the intention of the 14th Amendment, based on the expressed intent of the drafters, was to protect black citizens from having a state limit or deny their individual rights. However, most people would agree that this would be an unnecessarily limited view of the use of the broad term “equal protection.” Thus, according to Judge Bork, a court should apply the amendment “neutrally,” so as to enforce the core idea of racial equality, regardless of which race is being discriminated against. Thus, if one were to extend Judge Bork’s reasoning, one could argue that the decision in a case such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, was wrongly decided. According to Justice Bork’s theory, such a decision would be based, not on policy preferences, but on purely judicial grounds.

That leaves the problem, however, of just how high the level of generality for the term “equal protection” should be set. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that, in some cases, it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to discriminate based on gender. Judge Bork argues that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend that the Equal Protection Clause would extend to laws which treated women differently from men, and that there is no other legitimate basis on which to extend such constitutional protections beyond race and ethnicity.

Judge Bork admits that the language of the 14th Amendment, broadly written to prevent a state from “deny[ing] any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law,” does not explicitly contain such a limitation. However, he points to a failure of the Court to adequately explain why some groups beyond race and ethnic groups would be included, while others would be denied. According to Judge Bork (and echoed years later by Justice Scalia), the problem of levels of generality is solved by choosing a level of generality no higher than that which interpretation of the words, structure, and history of the Constitution fairly support.

The theory of original intent, however, quickly came under critical scrutiny by other commentators. The first criticism was that the Constitution was drafted after a good deal of political compromise, so that it would be nearly impossible to ascertain a single collective intent of a large group of individuals, each of whom may have had different intentions. Second, as discussed above, historical evidence could be viewed as suggesting that the framers in fact intended for future generations not to interpret the Constitution according to their intent, but according to the “common sense meaning” of the document. Thus, for instance, the framers’ desire to keep the records of the proceedings of the Convention secret could be seen as intended to prevent those proceedings from being used in interpretation.​

Yup, as you have just shown there's rational for all sides of the argument. One of the biggest challenges (in my humble but accurate opinion) is that the vast majority of lawyers/judges do not have a solid background in lexicon of linguistics, cultural anthropology or history for that matter. Lawyers and judges, like everyone else in the world has a tendency to interpret everything based on their world view hence the number of differing arguments.

Red:
??? Excuse me? There are two schools of jurisprudence within the overall category of originalism. I provided a discussion of only one of those schools of thought, that of original intentionalism. There's no room in intentionalism for the other originalist school of thought. Moreover, there's no room there for non-originalist schools of thought.

 

[Fishlore]

The militia clause has been separated from the rest of the wording in the latest SCOTUS ruling. This will be overturned in a subsequent case. How soon? Depends on next November.

 

[Sadie (D-MD)]

IMO "well-regulated militia" is anachronistic unless SCOTUS defines an updated context. The second amendment needs well-defined regulations that still protect the right to self and property defense and lawful recreational use.
I think gun purchasing should follow a model similar to getting a drivers' license. You don't give a license to blind people or people with frequent seizures or with some other incapability to operate a motor vehicle because they can't be trusted on the road. So a gun license should be granted to those with obvious mental issues or on a terrorist watch list.
Of course, the counter-argument is that those who want to use guns to kill people will acquire them illegally, and more bureaucracy will make it harder for the "good guy with a gun."
The way I see it, however, is that these background checks do not need to be as cumbersome as getting a security clearance - it should be something like a cross between a background test for a job and a written test.
While this regulation wouldn't completely eliminate gun violence, or even reduce it by 50%, I believe it would at least do something. A number of the perpetrators of mass shootings accessed their guns by simply purchasing them. Of course, a murderer with a premeditated plan may steal a gun or get someone else to buy it, etc... but adding this extra hurdle just might deter those who were generally unstable and the ease of access enabled them to pull the trigger at the tipping point.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Agreed, not to mention the most important point; the fact the Founders suppported the fundamental right of self-defense.

LWers believe the Constitutional grants us rights. What they don't understand is that we already have all of our rights and the Constitution limits government. Anyone who reads and understands the controversy of surrounding even writing the Bill of Rights has an understanding of our unalienable rights.

SCOTUS never recognized this right until 2008. And please link up where the founders felt personal, home defense should be implicit in the 2nd Amendment.

Actually the Courts did find the right protected lots of stuff before 2008 For example in 1939 they ruled that a weapon must be OF USE to the military to be protected by the 2nd amendment.

 

[yiostheoy]

Actually the Courts did find the right protected lots of stuff before 2008 For example in 1939 they ruled that a weapon must be OF USE to the military to be protected by the 2nd amendment.

Scalia mentions this in his write-up of Heller as well.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

 

[yiostheoy]

IMO "well-regulated militia" is anachronistic unless SCOTUS defines an updated context. The second amendment needs well-defined regulations that still protect the right to self and property defense and lawful recreational use.
I think gun purchasing should follow a model similar to getting a drivers' license. You don't give a license to blind people or people with frequent seizures or with some other incapability to operate a motor vehicle because they can't be trusted on the road. So a gun license should be granted to those with obvious mental issues or on a terrorist watch list.
Of course, the counter-argument is that those who want to use guns to kill people will acquire them illegally, and more bureaucracy will make it harder for the "good guy with a gun."
The way I see it, however, is that these background checks do not need to be as cumbersome as getting a security clearance - it should be something like a cross between a background test for a job and a written test.
While this regulation wouldn't completely eliminate gun violence, or even reduce it by 50%, I believe it would at least do something. A number of the perpetrators of mass shootings accessed their guns by simply purchasing them. Of course, a murderer with a premeditated plan may steal a gun or get someone else to buy it, etc... but adding this extra hurdle just might deter those who were generally unstable and the ease of access enabled them to pull the trigger at the tipping point.

This is the "liberal" view of the pro-2nd Amendment right -- basically that it is a "privilege" like a drivers license rather than a "right" such as voting.

Generally the states treat the right to own guns as a "right" but then they treat the right to carry in public as a "privilege" the latter of which required training.

Scalia said that that states have the right to regulate public carrying, but he did not say where he pulled that out of his ass.

 

[hunarcy]

The militia clause has been separated from the rest of the wording in the latest SCOTUS ruling. This will be overturned in a subsequent case. How soon? Depends on next November.

It' can't be. The militia clause is a subordinate clause and therefore does not communicate intent. The second clause, the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is the dominate clause and does communicate intent.

Now, if the Founders had intended that only militia be given the right, then why did they say "...the right of the PEOPLE..." instead of "...the right of the MILITIA..."? Obviously, they knew how to spell "militia".

 

[westwall]

every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

Clearly English isn't your first language so I will make it simple for you, the preparatory statement "a well regulated militia" refers to the people as a whole who make up the militia. Thus when it states that the "Right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" merely states that the individual person can not be denied firearms. As far as what is allowed, the Founders wanted the American Public to be every bit as well armed as the Army was so absent WMD's I would say yes, whatever a person wants is good to go.

 

[westwall]

if you need more then 5 rounds to kill the bear that attacks you...you should never have gone into the wilderness

You've clearly never hunted.

 

[2aguy]

every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

Clearly English isn't your first language so I will make it simple for you, the preparatory statement "a well regulated militia" refers to the people as a whole who make up the militia. Thus when it states that the "Right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" merely states that the individual person can not be denied firearms. As far as what is allowed, the Founders wanted the American Public to be every bit as well armed as the Army was so absent WMD's I would say yes, whatever a person wants is good to go.

They know what the 2nd Amendment says.....what it protects....so they have in order to fool the uninformed they play word games on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment......because they hate guns....and will ban guns the first chance they get......

 

[2aguy]

IMO "well-regulated militia" is anachronistic unless SCOTUS defines an updated context. The second amendment needs well-defined regulations that still protect the right to self and property defense and lawful recreational use.
I think gun purchasing should follow a model similar to getting a drivers' license. You don't give a license to blind people or people with frequent seizures or with some other incapability to operate a motor vehicle because they can't be trusted on the road. So a gun license should be granted to those with obvious mental issues or on a terrorist watch list.
Of course, the counter-argument is that those who want to use guns to kill people will acquire them illegally, and more bureaucracy will make it harder for the "good guy with a gun."
The way I see it, however, is that these background checks do not need to be as cumbersome as getting a security clearance - it should be something like a cross between a background test for a job and a written test.
While this regulation wouldn't completely eliminate gun violence, or even reduce it by 50%, I believe it would at least do something. A number of the perpetrators of mass shootings accessed their guns by simply purchasing them. Of course, a murderer with a premeditated plan may steal a gun or get someone else to buy it, etc... but adding this extra hurdle just might deter those who were generally unstable and the ease of access enabled them to pull the trigger at the tipping point.

Sorry......democrats thought that freed black slaves needed to follow a licensing process as well for the right to vote...first, they required a Poll Tax, knowing that most of the freed blacks would not be able to pay it....second, they required a test, like the drivers license test, but it was a test for voting......

Both were deemed unConstitutional under the 14th amendment since they were both intended to deny access to a right...

A car is not a right, the Right to keep and bear guns is actually written into the Bill of Rights......and any attempt to tax or test it away from Americans is unConstitutional....

The current background check system, mandated by the government, does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or mass public shooters.....

Almost all mass shooters get their guns by passing background checks...and if you managed to get a licensing scheme going they would get a license for their guns too.....mass public shooters have no criminal record before their mass public shooting....the ones who can't get guns steal them, Sandy Hook, or buy them illegally, Columbine....and get past every single law you want.....

France has absolutely every law you want.......they have outlawed fully automatic weapons and all rifles with detachable magazines.......you can't buy them or own them, ......and criminals and terrorists get their fully automatic weapons easily.....

The only way to stop criminals...arrest them when they commit crimes with guns and lock them up for a long time......adding paperwork for law abiding citizens does nothing.......

 

[2aguy]

IMO "well-regulated militia" is anachronistic unless SCOTUS defines an updated context. The second amendment needs well-defined regulations that still protect the right to self and property defense and lawful recreational use.
I think gun purchasing should follow a model similar to getting a drivers' license. You don't give a license to blind people or people with frequent seizures or with some other incapability to operate a motor vehicle because they can't be trusted on the road. So a gun license should be granted to those with obvious mental issues or on a terrorist watch list.
Of course, the counter-argument is that those who want to use guns to kill people will acquire them illegally, and more bureaucracy will make it harder for the "good guy with a gun."
The way I see it, however, is that these background checks do not need to be as cumbersome as getting a security clearance - it should be something like a cross between a background test for a job and a written test.
While this regulation wouldn't completely eliminate gun violence, or even reduce it by 50%, I believe it would at least do something. A number of the perpetrators of mass shootings accessed their guns by simply purchasing them. Of course, a murderer with a premeditated plan may steal a gun or get someone else to buy it, etc... but adding this extra hurdle just might deter those who were generally unstable and the ease of access enabled them to pull the trigger at the tipping point.

but adding this extra hurdle just might deter those who were generally unstable and the ease of access enabled them to pull the trigger at the tipping point.

Almost every mass public shooter planned their attack for 6 months to 2 years.........

 

[9thIDdoc]

every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

It is a right of the People. An individual right as are the other rights in the Bill of Rights.. "Arms" is defined differently in different states and continues to be contested in the courts.