I do have a rather unique view .. If it were up to me I'd do away with anything at airports other than screening for explosives .. and I'd spend some time doing that to cargo not just passengers. It's my opinion that 9/11 happened because too many people listened to the government too much. The government said not to worry if you got hijacked just do whatever they say and we will negotiate you out of it. Well that works when all the want is a ride somewhere. But as we found out sometimes that's not all they want. It's my belief that there will never be another plane flown into a building. As long as they can be kept out of the cockpit, they will be buried in bodies both living, dead and wounded. It will not happen in a plane I'm on.
The constitution was going to bring into existence a standing army. this made a lot of the people including patriots very uncomfortable since they had just finished a war of rebellion against a legal standing army. In fact Thomas Jefferson was one of those against having a standing army. James Madison was for having one if I recollect what I read of the federalist papers. The second amendment was to answer those fears. Today what do things look like? Do all of those invasive practices at airports and the cops showing up in riot gear an a peaceful demonstration seeking redress from the government make you feel safer and more secure in your person?
I do feel like the average citizen should be able to purchase any weapon commonly used by any domestic law enforcement group/unit. Since most of those SWAT teams do have some weapons that are selectable between semi-automatic and fully automatic then that would mean I do believe that act is an infringement. Personally in a real fire fight to me all a fully automatic weapon would be good for is to make the other side keep their heads down at too high a price in ammo. I'd much rather depend on aimed fire.
In my opinion and I think in the opinion of the SCOUS right now the 2nd amendment hinges on 2 words, militia and people.
In the body of the constitution it defines a militia as an armed body of troops. Anywhere else it uses the word people in the other amendments it is talking about the entire body of citizens and the meaning is that the citizens might need those arms to protect themselves from government run amok along with from thieves and other dangers.
If you read the Federalist papers it's quite obvious that protection from government was one of the reasons.
In the above document:
ICE and CBP exercise longstanding constitutional and statutory authority permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent. Two public Directives issued in 2009 (CBP Directive No. 3340-049 “Border Search of Electronic Devices Containing Information” and ICE Directive No. 7-6.1 “Border Searches of Electronic Devices”) impose requirements governing use of this authority in searching, reviewing, retaining, and sharing information contained in electronic devices.
I believe the operative phrase is "warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent."
Functional equivalent I'd say is their 100 mile zone and airport check points.
also in the next section:
The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and long-standing, and courts have not treated searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects. We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits. However, we do think that recording more information about why searches are performed would help managers and leadership supervise the use of border search authority, and this is what we recommended; CBP has agreed and has implemented this change beginning in FY2012.
Here this is the next step they take thinking they are acting in a manor that doesn't not help our civil rights. If you can parse out that crap you are better at English than I am.
We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits.