http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
I have been thinking about the second amendment:
Amendment II
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. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
The constitution does give Americans or people within the state the right to "bear Arms." But the purpose to "bear Arms" is clear, "necessary to the security of a free State." If I remember correctly the "Militia" during the period when the Constitution was drafted or "well regulated Militia," was made up of citizens who came together forming units from towns and states in order to serve the needs of either the state or the country. Because today this idea of service, coming together with neighbors for the purposes of creating a "Militia" does not mean that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" can be "infringed" or taken away. Only a new amendment to the Constitution repealing the Second Amendment or changing the Second Amendment can do so.
However the Supreme Court's argument in this decision focused on home protection:
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense (pg. 64 District of Columbia v. Heller).
I think that if rational people (key is rational and this is usually to much to ask of most of us concerning any issue), considered the Second Amendment as it stands that a new constructional amendment clarifying the Second Amendment could be possible. Again, not taking away the right for lawful sane citizens to own weapons, but maybe something along the lines that would prevent my next door neighbor from buying that M1 Abrams (Tank) and putting it in his front yard. Just think of the property values.
But, alas since the issue continues to be muddled, and this decision did nothing more than continue this chaos. Below is the results from Gallup Polls taken from 1990 through 2006 on gun control. Specifically, "Should laws covering the sale of firearms be...", with the following choices for answers: "more Strict"; "kept as they are now"; and "less strict." Pay attention to the "less strict" answer. Although they has been a rise from 1990 through 2006 of at least 7 percent (with a high in 1995 of 12 percent), the number is still overwhelming low when compared with the 91 percent (only 88 percent in 1995) who clearly feel that some form of gun sale control should exist. The article I have included below from the Pew Research Center focuses on the percentage drop of the "more strict" answer, I think that that is only making news of non-news given that those who want "less strict" fire arms is at best 12 percent.
(Source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/443/the-nras-image-improves-as-support-for-gun-control-slips)
I believe that if most people knew that the Second Amendment as it reads grants "the people" (Not citizens, it says people) the right to own any weapon available that, including military weapons of mass destruction, that a change in this amendment may be justified. I do not want the right to bear arms taken away, I would still like to keep my right, especially if I need to protect myself from my neighbors who after reading this blog decide to come after me. I just want to make sure that when I pull out a REMINGTON 1187 AUTO LOADER, that they are not coming at me with an M16 with an M203 grenade launcher attached (Yes, I was in the Army-Hooah!). But, if its the cops, I think that they should be able to come in well armed, enough to scare me from using any weapon available to me.
My first two cents....
