The whole amendment, to be frank, has nothing to do with gun ownership IMHO and more to do with a militia. The assumption of "the right of the people to own a gun" is made by the text itself, that right, which isn't outlined or defined in the text, isn't to be infringed upon, SO THAT a state can form a militia. You're reading it in the inverse of how I read it. You're interpretation is that states have a right to a well regulated militia, therefore people can own guns...?
Yes it is very poorly worded regardless of how you want to make sense of it.
Yes that appears to be the intention imo.
The text is essentially a clause outlining that states need well regulated militias and that they should be drawn from the people who have the right to gun ownership and that the ownership of guns should not be infringed.
Let's ignore the militia and well regulated language for a moment. Wouldn't the bolded indicated that the state couldn't pass any laws regarding gun control?
No dodging just interpretation of the text as I see it.
Why don't you just come out with what your trying to get at with your questions?
You and I both know they can and have. Just as they've allowed for murder/state sanction murder by execution. I think it can. I think it should.
In reference to the decision in the op I'm just confused as to where the line is? Most people agree that the founding fathers position was not one of "no gun control" and court decisions over the last hundred years have upheld that. Given that I'm not sure what's different about this DC case that caused the court to rule the way it did. Is banning hand guns really that different from banning automatic weapons?
Over the last few decades the right and the NRA seem to be of the position that all gun control is an anathema not only to the 2nd amendment, but to liberty itself. An especially galling assertion from the party that gave us the Patriot Act.
I'm honestly on the fence here. I think its ridiculous that we see as much gun violence in this country as we do, but given our current culture I'm skeptical that more aggressive control would put a dent in it and in any case its clear there is no strong imperative from the voting public to advance such legislation.
Its just unfortunate that the conversation has been hijacked by the extreme right and the NRA and boiled down to a question of self-defense (statically irrelevant) or defense from a tyrannical government (laughably obtuse imo).
Mind you I don't mean to make light of the self-defense angle. I get it. I have a family and I've considered purchasing a gun, because you never know
. What stops me is knowing that I'm more likely to use it on myself or a family member than in self-defense.
I just wince anytime the hint of gun legislation is shouted down by idiots worried about the "gubminit coming to take our guns". At the end of the day the only people truly benefiting from our inaction our lobbyists
, gun manufacturers
and funeral directors.
