Originally Posted by MteK
That's pretty weak reasoning and in no way does the second amendment say anything about what type of gun you can have. It also dosent say anything about detachable magazines or their capacity, or didn't you learn that from the last Assault Weapons ban?
You can remain entrenched in your view, as weakly constructed as it is, and watch as more sensible people put plan to action and deal with the issues in ways you may not like.
How is that weak? Militias engaged in combat against army regulars, so they clearly had in mind something suitable for that task. Of course they didn't mention what kind of guns you can have. That's INTENTIONAL. The colonists used dramatically superior guns to the British army regulars and they didn't want to limit us to the technology of their day. They didn't even want to limit it to guns if something more suitable came along, which is why they said "arms". Just because it has a detachable magazine does not mean it's no longer an arm suitable for militia duty if needed. Quite the contrary- a 30 round detachable mag makes it MORE suitable for that task in modern times.
If you don't like the wording, petition to have it changed, but don't just ignore it.
And, not that it matters in the slightest, but I'm an officer in the reserves, so don't think you have some kind of special perspective just because you used to be in the military. The only difference it makes is that you're ignoring your oath.