Well just to clarify, the 2nd amendment declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State." The states are now free, this was supposed to be applied to home-defenders in the time of war, ie. a civil war or an invasion of the homeland.
So the whole "right to bear arms" is taken way out of context, our states are quite free, and militias aren't around anymore, unless you count the national guard. If people really want a strict interpretation of the second amendment, then all gun owners should be forced to sign up for the national guard so they can join the "militia" that would legalize their gun ownership.
On that note, I do think that the second amendment argument is the dumbest reason for gun owners to say "looky here, it says so i can has guns in this here paper!"
but...i am still for gun ownership. We own a few at my house, a springfield 1903, mauser K98, mossberg 500, and a handful of lever action .22 cal rifles. I think gun owership is a fine and dandy thing, but what i am against is when people are able to waltz into their local gun dealership and purchase a grizzly .50 caliber rifle with 3 grand and a CA driver's license. Thankfully, as of 2003 (maybe 2004, i forget the year this took place) that is no longer possible.
Let's get this straight, because the stuff i wrote above may seem confusing or contradictory. I am for gun ownership, infact i'm looking into getting a rifle myself soon. However, i think the second amendment argument used by people to argue the reason why they deserve guns, is absolute bullshit.
