nope, nothing in the Constitution about what kinds of guns we can own

2nd amendment extends to all guns in the same way the 1st amendment extends to typing

anyone with a brain understands this ^ , but you know liberals.. f**king zombies.

The Constitution prohibited a standing army, yet needed to allow a defensive force against native and foreign actors, and to provide for suppression of slave or other insurrection, while keeping that kind of language out of the text. Should 2A have been changed when the permanent military or National Guard were established? Maybe, but the fact is it wasn't. As a personal view, I believe urban society logically calls for different rules than rural society; NYC rules make no sense in Wyoming, and vice versa. All that being said, 2A is whatever SCOTUS says it is; no more and no less.

I like how you worked in the slave revolts into that. You are high as a kite. Slave revolts weren’t a huge concern in 1780. The fact you tried to cram that in there is hilarious and exhibits your high level of hate whitey and America brainwashing.

The right to bear arms unfortunately is open to interpretation. The fact is that colonists needed to have a means to defend themselves from hostiles’ like Indians (yes, Indians committed many massacres against whites) Wildlife, or a foreign invader. All were real and present dangers at the time. However, The founders were products of their experience and the right to bear arms was secured in order to secure the government of the people, by the people and for the people, to the people. They understood a disarmed populace was at a disadvantage to The Kings’ and Queens‘ professional soldiery. The right to bear arms was secured to the people for the basic purpose of defense against the tyranny of their own government. By its intent I believe that people have the right to own arms unhindered and yes that means semi automatic rifles. When the Army of the government has planes and helicopters, semi automatic rifles is modest on a scale of comparison.

Slave rebellions were well known in the 1600's, well before the Founders were even born. It's not a "hate whitey" sentiment.

Not in America

Prevention, due to heavy policing and GUNS, not because America ignored what was going on elsewhere. And who knows how much wasn't documented. Regardless, I wasn't claiming this was the primary reason for gun ownership, I just lumped it together with native and foreign threats, all requiring an armed populace.

Exactly you just crammed it on there though it was not a motivator for the 2nd amendment. It was not even thought of except in your 21st century SJW mind. At the time it was normal, though abhorrent to modern sensibilities it was accepted as is on those times.

Slavery was not accepted "as is," many delegates to the Constitutional Convention spoke out against it, eventually accepting it as being outside the scope of their mission, to avoid failure. No need to whitewash it, multiple constituencies agreed the people needed to be armed.

Not white washing anything. It is insincere and inaccurate to say the 2nd amendment was in any way motivated by fear of slave revolts. That’s inaccurate and hate mongering by 1619 project sycophants.

“If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress."
Patrick Henry, at the Virginia ratification convention, arguing against federal control of state militias. George Mason offered similar views. Fellow Virginian James Madison then penned 2A, borrowing some language not coincidentally from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. No hate mongering, other states did indeed agree with the preference for state control of militias without slavery as an issue, like Massachusetts.

I agree, strongly, that urban society and rural society need different rules. As the country grows and becomes more diverse, racially and in terms of population density, it becomes increasingly absurd to think that laws can applied evenly and justly across the spectrum.

#RepealTheHughesAmendment

back then the guns could only shoot like 2 bullets per minute and weren't very accurate while today's guns shoot at like 600 rounds per minute and are extremely accurate.I doubt the second amendment would be the same if people saw how deadly guns would be in the future

The 2nd is to have the ability to defend oneself against a corrupt government. The people together have to be stronger than the powers that be. If the government becomes more powerful than the people , you have China, and dictatorship. Should the freedom of speech be limited now because we can reach millions of people with one tweet? If you are going to dismantle 1 freedom be prepared to dismantle them all.

When the media give up their tech, I'll consider giving up mine. I doubt the founders would agree to give the press carte blanche if they saw how destructive the media would be in the future.

Also as for terms of technology - our 2nd amendment gave US civilians the exact same arms the military used at the time.