So you think you know the 2nd Amendment

[peggy]

But that's the rub across the board isn't, no one has, yet we are here talking about restricting their rights. I'd be curious to see if there were more aggressive intervention strategies short of incarceration that could be used for high risk individuals. It's an interesting balance, widespread modest restrictions on low risk people versus more invasive restrictions on higher risk people. And I say higher only in the relative sense, since these events are rare among even the higher risk pool. But as a matter of effectiveness the widespread restrictions are likely to do nothing whereas the more tailored approach may be more effective (anything is more than nothing)

Restricting rights. That's what i keep hearing...restricting rights. Kind of a straw man, or redirect. But, if you want to talk the constitution, let's talk the constitution.
First of all, who said owning every weapon of death every created is a right? If you want to keep with the strict meaning of the constitution, then let's do that. Let's look at the weaponry available at the time the second amendment was written and go with that. Muskets? Cannons maybe? Sure. Arm yourself with a musket. You have that right AS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. They only knew muskets, and not owning time machines, had muskets in mind when they wrote that. So, gather unto yourself all the muskets you want, and form your militia. Let us stick, absolutely, to the TRUE MEANING of the writers of the constitution.
These weren't magic men. They didn't have crystal balls. if you profess to be a strict constitutionalists, then you must know that it was written according to the times. When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, What weaponry did they have in mind? What weapon did they think of? I say let's stick with that.