does anyone else think I'm correct in my 2nd amendment opinion?

Question

I'm going to be up front and tell you that I'm a socialist. But that doesn't mean  many other socialists
agree with me. So here is my question. I've read the 2nd amendment and I think the anti-gun lobbies
are incorrect in saying things like "they meant it for hunting or for a regulated-milita." I believe it means exactly what it says, that we have the right to own and bear arms. And it says that the reason we have that right is in case a majority of Americans find they need protection against the government.
  Another thing the anti-gun groups say is they were talking about "hunting weapons and not automatic weapons." And that "our forefathers had no idea that future weapons would enable a man to shoot 30 rounds
per second." I think that is lazy thinking,these men had seen in their lifetime weapons go from clumsy
muskets to long rifles that were very accurate. I believe these men envisioned a day when guns would hold
more then one round. By 1780 almost all gunmakers were trying to create a weapon that would hold more than one bullet. 
  Well I could go on but I'll quit and put it to you- am I wrong or right?

Tortfeasor · Accepted Answer

You're right.  The 2nd Amendment articulates an individual right to bear arms.  That right is not limited by the militia clause.  

However, if you think that means that guns cannot be subject to any regulation, you are very, very wrong.

Uncle Pennybags · Answer

You are right.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was that the Founders wanted the people to own arms, so they could bear them in service of the militia if needed.

Clearly the intent is the arms should be suitable for use in the militia.

A musket was a fine militia weapon in the 1790s.  But in the 21st Century, the AR-15 with high capacity magazines makes a much more suitable weapon for the citizen militia.

Mark · Answer

"Steven,"  Did you know that we have a President that ISN'T a Socialist just like I'm not a socialist and almost every Democrat you will run across ISN'T a Socialist like yourself.  So it isn't just other Socialists that don't agree with you it's also good old fashioned Capitalists like Obama and me and the Democrats that don't agree with you!  And for your information, the FUCKING2nd amendment actually "says" "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."  Now are you a militia?  No, you're a punk, and the 2nd amendment is VAGUE to the point of contention.  How's that?

Rick31 · Answer

I believe the Constitution has been around over 220 years and none of the Bill of Rights has ever been repealed in all that time. The 2nd Amendment puts no restrictions on bearing arms. Even Stephen Breyer, one of the most liberal justices, says the 2nd Amendment is so plain there is little room for denying it unless Congress repeals it and that is extremely difficult requiring a two-third majority in both Houses or having two-thirds of state legislatures passing it.

The Oracle of Omigod · Answer

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from the government.  From Examination of Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787:  "The Supreme Power in America cannot enforce unjust laws because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to the regular troops".

does anyone else think I'm correct in my 2nd amendment opinion?

Related Questions

Trending Questions