Infringement? Ok...

Let's get real for a second. Let's think logically about what we're really discussing in terms of "gun rights," "gun control," and "assault weapons."

First, the actual text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Sorry, but there's just no way on God's green earth that the Founders intended the right to "bear arms" solely in reference to hunting for purposes of sustenance. How is the right to hunt a deer (when even in 1776 you could have bought a cow or pig from your neighbor) fundamental to the "security of a free State"? Answer: NEWSFLASH! It isn't.

And it wasn't written to make sure individuals could defend themselves and their families from criminal home invaders either, although it conveniently provides for that as well.

The funny thing about the Bill of Rights is that if you read them as written along with some of the Founders' other writings at the time, they were all written with the SAME PURPOSE: to protect individuals from the government.

When you read them through that lens, it's amazing how much "interpretation" is suddenly not required.

"Well, the Founders never meant that average citizens should have "assault rifles" with 15-30 round clips."

If they had known that the federal government would be in possession of nuclear weapons, you're damn straight they would have meant exactly that - if not more.

But the thing that gets me is the number of people who read the last phrase: "shall not be infringed" and are not outraged at what has already been banned. Folks, every "modification" is a limitation. And every limitation is an infringement. Every law on the books that adjusts or modifies your 2nd Amendment in any way is an infringement, and stands in direct violation of the Constitution.