Another thought about the Second Amendment.

First of all, there is an enormous amount of paranoia in this country about both guns and the Second Amendment. Paranoia is good for the people who want no restrictions of gun manufacture or sales because it keeps people in fear that they will lose their rights and their guns. That's why big money is in back of paranoia production.

In fact, no one in power is talking about eliminating the Second Amendment and no one is talking about taking everyone's guns away from them. So why don't we drop the paranoia and talk about what really matters, which is why the gun lobby has such a tight grip on Congress that it is impossible to do anything about regulating gun traffic. 

The Second Amendment talks about citizens bearing arms so that a militia is always potentially available to come to the country's defense. It didn't talk about people carrying guns into theaters and shooting obnoxious men who text their daughters during previews (which happened just yesterday) or arming heads of households so they could accidentally shoot their sons coming in late through the back door (which happened years ago). The arms of the time were muskets and pistols, not weapons of nearly-massive destruction. 

My point is that the Constitution is a living document, meaning that it has to be reinterpreted and advanced as the times change. With a well trained and supplied military and National Guard, we may no longer need every person to be prepared with military-style weaponry. Just because the Second Amendment gave us the right to have a musket or two, I don't think it is rational to believe that everyone today has an equivalent "right" to posses an assault weapon. 

I have a 12-gauge shotgun for hunting but the law says that I must keep a plug in the magazine so that I can load only three shells. I have a six-shot Ruger pistol but the law says (in California at least) that I cannot carry it concealed in any way and that I am responsible for keeping it out of accessibility to children. There are other interesting laws. One cannot fly an airplane without first taking training and qualifying for a pilot's license. One cannot drive an automobile on public roadways without a training, a driver's license, and sufficient insurance. All of these laws are in the name of public safety. But virtually anyone can buy an assault weapon capable of killing hundreds of people within minutes without training, insurance, or any other regulation.

Yes, guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns (and with other things). But it is terribly difficult to predict what people are going to kill. It is way too simplistic to say that law abiding citizens can do anything they please and criminals are the ones to be regulated. Unfortunately, we don't know who the criminals are until they have committed a crime. (The man who shot the texter, mentioned above, was a retired policeman.)

When I wanted to go hunting, I had to take a training class before I could get a license to hunt. I don't see anything wrong with that, and in particular I never saw it as a violation of my Second Amendment rights.