2nd Amendment refers to the general populace's right to bear arms unrestricted.
Because accusations levied at both sides that one hasn't read the constitution whenever discussions of gun control arise are slowly giving me heart disease, let's just talk about this openly.
The Amendment reads:
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.
Here are two opposing views on that text:
Yes.
Side Score: 0
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Just like most things established in the Constitution, the second amendment is really open to individual interpretation. I personally am a mix of those two positions in the videos. While I believe a (well-regulated) militia should have the right to bear arms, I also believe that the general public should be allowed to obtain a firearm of if the so choose, that being if the process has a regulation/is stricter (I'd imagine a look at his/her past, concerning firearms and weapons, if any, and a specific test to make sure the person understands how to use the weapon would suffice). Side: No.
1
point
|
