Show me one parent who gave their kid an military type weapon. Guns are no longer about hunting, guns are marketed as killing machines. This was not my decision
Guns, like any other product in society, are about whatever the people who own them use them for. For me, guns aren't about hunting in the least and I certainly don't intend to use them as killing machines. Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen any marketing of guns whatsoever except for in gun enthusiast magazines, which for the record, no, I don't buy. Remember back in the day how Vans shoes were heavily marketed towards predominantly male skaters? Guess what, as a female non-skater, I bought them for years and could have cared less what they were marketed for. My reason for owning them had absolutely zero to do with what they were marketed for or to whom they were marketed. Same with guns and the NRA. I don't know and don't care what guns are being promoted, the reasons why, etc, nor do I pay attention to what spokespeople for the NRA have to say. I am completely capable of making my own decisions, and I imagine most gun owners feel the same way.
Once again, that is not the amendment. "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." Now, if you, like Gumbo, want to say the 1st half doesn't matter and can be filled with "blah, blah, blah", go ahead. It is a poorly worded amendment. I could say "An umbrella, being necessary because of the chance of rain, you can't keep me from eating pizza."
If you'll notice, I'm not arguing for/against gun control (I've gone back and forth on the issue myself).
What I was trying to point out earlier in the thread is that the structure of the sentence, like the structure of any sentence in our language, depicts how it's to be read. An example: Well-equipped schools, being necessary for the education of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed. The subject of that sentence is not the schools, it's the right (of the people to own and read books). The absolute clause "Well-equipped...free state" gives an indication of the mindset for the subject, but it by no means makes the right of the people to own and read books dependent on schools being in existence, nor limits the right to only those in schools. The sentence simply is not structured that way.
To give a simpler example: The professor being ill, class is cancelled. The subject is the class, the action is it being cancelled. The professor being ill provides background for the sentence, but it can't be taken to mean that class can only ever be cancelled if the professor is ill or that class isn't still cancelled if the professor is actually not sick but just playing hookie.
Likewise, the absolute phrase about the militia gives background info for the subject, but structurally does not make the right of the people limited to the militia or dependent on the existence of a militia or dependent on society viewing a militia as being necessary to the security of a free state. This is not my opinion. It's merely the structure of sentences and how parts of speech function in a sentence.
If you understand history, at the time, armys were controlled by kings, and that is how they stayed in power. Its like that knucklehead in North Korea, he controls the army so he stays in power. What they are trying to do is establish that the army belonged to the people and not the president. I would guess home security was never on their minds at the time. Regardless. the courts have established we can have rules in regards to safety. No one is trying to ban guns, that is floated out there to red meat the base.
Several of our founding fathers were recorded as referencing the security of their homes in regards to the right to own a gun.
The Supreme Court has also established that they see the 2nd amendment as providing individual rather than collective rights to gun ownership as well. They've ruled that the phrase about the militia does not prevent the right of the people to bear arms. Of course that right is not unlimited. No one here is trying to claim that it is or that it should be. We're simply trying to have a discussion about safety that doesn't infringe on our Constitutional rights and will actually work to reduce violence.
