LeftCoastVoter
Member
- Nov 29, 2012
- 579
- 23
- 16
the right to "bear" arms can literally be interpreted as the right to "carry" arms. thus the constitution does not define the right to purchase arms, nor does it define what an "arm" actually is.the second amendment is fine.
its the gun nutters interpitation that is out of line with reality
Well, I think it is really out of touch with the times. It 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."
However, you are also right that it is being incorrectly interpreted by some. The word, "militia", should be a red flag. But some people have complexes about themselves and owning fire arms makes them feel important. I don't believe it has anything to do with protecting their families. When was the last time someone protected their family with an assault rifle?? The argument is just bull.
ahhh but the second sentence in no way limits it to a "well regulated militia" asswarp!