Is the Constitution "vague"?

[ozarksboy]

WARNING: The following is my column from the April 20 Rolla Daily News. It is divisive and polarizing. If you are squeamish about opinions stated directly, turn back now. This is solely the opinion of the writer, so don't blame Frank. Thanks.

A blogger I sort of know says the Second Amendment’s directive that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” needs to be looked at again. He says the amendment “holds two key terms which need clarification.”
First, he says in his blog that the word “infringed” is “so vague as to have no meaning at all.” He contends the Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be a “living document” that is “open to interpretation as changes in society and technology demand.”
The second term is “arms.” He wants to know “where do you draw the line?” between muzzle-loaded muskets and intercontinental ballistic missiles to decide what arms citizens should be allowed to own and what they shouldn’t.
“At the moment, the move is to draw the line at assault rifles, largely due to their capacity for harm,” the guy writes in his blog. “Further, no one has established a genuine need for them.”
Then, he writes the favorite phrase of the anti-gun crowd: “Clearly something has do be done.”
He writes further: “We are at a crossroads. We can either actively make things better, or do the same nothing we always have, and things will continue to grow worse.”
Let me take a look at the second term, “arms,” first.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure there was always a pool of good shots that could be called on to keep the country free in case of threats, both foreign and domestic, to take away that liberty. Giving the citizens the right to own and use weapons was a way to make sure they’d know how to shoot in case a militia needed to be called up. At the time, an infantry soldier would carry a musket.
Today, infantry soldiers carry automatic assault rifles. I think that is where the so-called line could be drawn. I think citizens should be allowed to own automatic assault rifles, just like an infantryman carries.
But you cannot legally own an automatic assault rifle without jumping through a lot of legal hoops, so already there is an abridgment of your Second Amendment rights.
That seems to be OK with most citizens. In fact, a lot of citizens want to ban so-called assault weapons entirely, for they apparently believe the word “infringe” does not have a precise meaning.
Fortunately, the Senate has decided not to encroach on the right to own semi-automatic assault weapons. Although the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth has been put on hold, the movement to infringe on gun owners’ rights is sure to return.
Maybe now that the latest killings were by pressure cooker rather than assault rifle, the anti-gunners will temporarily turn their attention to banning home canning equipment.

[Frank_Cox]

WARNING: The following is my column from the April 20 Rolla Daily News. It is divisive and polarizing. If you are squeamish about opinions stated directly, turn back now. This is solely the opinion of the writer, so don't blame Frank. Thanks.

haha, thanks for that!

[alleyrat58]

Home canning equipment is dangerous clearly something has to be done.

[TuscaloosaQ]

I love every word of it!!!!!! Great post!!!!!

[HARRY BARKER]

great!

[Tommy Joe]

Now comes that back ground check for the pressure cooker so you can can all the fruit and veggieg that you will grow this summer! And you will only be allowed to have so many cups, you know some one with to many cups can hurt someone. NY and CO will only allow you to have 7 cups to the pot! Probably!