What is your interpretation of the second amendment to the US Constitution?

For those of you who need a reminder of what it is:

"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."

In my opinion, what this is stating is that everyone can legally own a gun, and that no one - state and national government - can do anything about it.

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that the ban in D.C. was unconstitutional. And, anyways, people will have guns anyways. You can't stop them.

So, what is your interpretation? Do you agree with the court's decision? (Optional) What do you think about firearms in general? Necessary or not?

All opinions welcome.

At the time those words were written in the Constitution, this country was wild & untamed. People needed guns both for food & protection. I don't believe in carrying a gun on my person while out of my home, too easy to kill someone who means me no harm. However, I do believe in my right to have a legally registered gun in my home for protection of my property & self. I keep it in a safe, well hidden place known only by myself & spouse. I see no harm in this, although I'm not sure that either of us could really shoot to kill anyone! It just gives us a false sense of security, thats sort of important, as long as you don't depend on it too much!

I believe that those words conveyed only 30% of the ambiguous _collective_ meaning the framers had in their _collective_ minds. I do not necessarily agree that they _all_ had the same idea in mind individually (maybe one of them thought the opposite of the other).

Whether they contemplated the DC ban is altogether a somewhat different issue (one can plausibly arrive at a consensus that the intended phrase was one particular interpretation - but that is not to say that the said interpretation covers a _particular_ specific matter)..

And, a third collateral issue is whether they individually or collectively thought the amendment was a "living" clause to be interpreted by referring to the current State of society at the time the interpretation is made.

In the end, it is possible we will never know for sure.

So we have to guess.

And so in guessing, we can certainly make a mistake.

But the Supreme Court Justices arrogance is such that they just HAVE to find an answer although it is possible the question cannot be answered. (alas the Turing halting problem).

:)

I personally believe that the amendment was centered mostly toward militias, not necessarily personal ownership. However, as most militia were basically a bunch of farmers with guns, the framers of the constitution would believe that it would apply to everyone. So, I believe that you have a Right to possess a gun.

I also believe; though, that the government has the right to restrict certain types of firearms. I'm not talking about rifles, handguns and assault weapons ... I'm talking about fully automatic machine guns, tanks, anti-aircraft weapons ... etc.

Finally, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision overturning the ban on handguns in D.C.

There's the same type of language in the 1st as in the 2nd amendment. "The people" are allowed free speech, freedom of religion, assemble, and petition the government for grievances.

If the US Supreme Court has ruled "The people" in the 2nd meant only groups, it would have established a precedent that "the people" in the 1st only applies to groups of people.

Image if you were only allowed free speech if you acted in a group, freedom to petition for injuries as a group.

In light of this, I support the 2nd as an individual right.

I believe that it states very plainly that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. I agree with the courts decision.

I believe that regulations with continue to become more stringent, making it harder for the average law abiding citizens to own guns. I also believe the average criminal will continue to obtain guns without going through the proper channels.

The 2nd amendent is not different from all other elements of the constitution. The document is absolute! The more the country's culture changes ( good-bad or indifferent ), the more challenges are made. This one very single mandate for all people shall represent who we are as a nation and also serves as the core to differentiate us from 3rd world tribal nations. It's called freedom and many have died to protect it.

not being a supreme court justice..
( hint ,hint)
I'd say it is supporting a right to bear arms and not an absolute right.
There are still rules and conditions and
and like your drivers license, it can be revoked.

having a gun for protection or hunting of food you will eat
is different than for trophy killing or criminal activity.

Personal firearms ownership on equity with the government's issued firearms. Only the most basic safety measures. No felons and no crazy people. Everyone else: Buy whatever you want, whenever you want. No bans, no restrictions, and no ten day waiting periods.

Hey sunflower: Sorry but caliber affects body armor far more than bullet type. My rifle would punch through it like a hot knife through butter. I fire 7.62x54R Full Metal Jacket. My rifle is over sixty years old. Do we have a problem with this?

firearm
you can use it to kill
you can use it to save a life
it all depends on what hands is it


so yeah ,
necessary
most of the time

That everyone has the right to own a gun.

Everyone has the right to own a fire arm, or in my case, 8 of them.

Can't answer now, I am cleaning my guns!

Everyone has the right to own a gun to protect their home and loved ones.

I don't think there should be bullets (or calibers of bullets) that penetrate policeman's bullet proof vests and I don't think they should have AK 47's on the streets, but handguns and rifles should be allowed. I don't think certain types of mentally ill people or felons should be allowed to own guns.

P.S. I am not a gun owner, but I don't think criminals should be the only ones brandishing firearms...It concerns me that Obama wants to DISARM this country of nuclear weapons and then where will he stop and what is his ultimate plan in doing this?? Hopefully he will not be elected...

I think it means, law abiding citizens are able to own guns.

This right is not absolute, just as none of the rights in the Constitution are absolute.

-The Press does not have the right to slander people.
-You do not have a right to hold a political rally at 2am in a residential neighborhood.
-Some religious sects believe in monogamy. In the USA you have no right to plural marriage.

The right to own and bear arms is like the other rights.