Is aquiring a firearm a privlege or a right?

[Yosef5891]

Some people claim the 2nd amendment restricts people's right to aquire firearms and others claim the complete opposite. Who is right or wrong?

 

[Tax Man]

A muzzle loader is a right a tomahawk missile is a privilege.

 

[TNHarley]

A muzzle loader is a right a tomahawk missile is a privilege.

I guess any word made after 1787 is a privilege as well?

 

[westwall]

A muzzle loader is a right a tomahawk missile is a privilege.

A self loading rifle is a Right, a Tomahawk missile is ORDNANCE. Though, the first artillery unit in America, The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston, was indeed private.

 

[koshergrl]

A muzzle loader is a right a tomahawk missile is a privilege.

Nope.
We have the right to arm ourselves with whatever weaponry we need to be able to hold off the government.

That is the whole point of the 2nd amendment. It isn't a mystery.

The left seeks to destroy the constitution..which is the foundation of all law in this country. When they say they can ignore it, what they mean is they can ignore the law. Because that's what it is.

 

[DGS49]

"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."

The right to "keep" implies the right to purchase.

Whether a "well-regulated militia" is still necessary for any legitimate purpose is debatable. But the USSC has not countenanced any restrictions based on that argument.

"Arms" is a fairly broad term...probably doesn't include suitcase nukes, but don't ask the NRA.

 

[The Irish Ram]

To keep implies, the event of an act of forcing arms to be surrendered. We are in the phase now...
A militia formed to confront the government has the right to assemble with arms and aim them.

^That makes the UN unhappy. Which is why we are in the phase we are in.

 

[Silent Warrior]

At the time the constitution was drafted, the weapons in the private sector were the same as those used by the military. These were the personal firearms not cannon. If the constitution were to be strictly adhered to machine guns would be legal. Saying it only allows muskets is like saying free speech doesn't apply to any words coined after the constitution was written.