It is and I think the NRA would lose it if Swiss gun regulations were implemented in the US.
The amendment is meaningless in the face of the biggest military the world as ever know and paramilitary police forces as well.
There is no way that the 2nd amendment holds water today unless a significant portion law enforcement and the military defects to overthrow the US federal government with an organized militia. The military could squash an organized militia in a matter of hours with drones in the modern day.
It was great when it was just muskets as Jim Jeffries says in his bit about guns, but the current government has drones!!
If your going to quote the second amendment at least post the whole thing.
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.
There is no need for a well regulated militia when you have biggest military ever known.
There are also many attacks on the "well regulated" part as well. Whenever there is any discussion about a universal background check system to make sure people who shouldn't have guns can't get them. The NRA and many in congress lose their collective s*it.
I'm actually not a fan of the NRA so I do not care what they do. If you're going to quote the Second Amendment, why don't you post Justice Scalia's opinion on DC v Heller. But I guess that goes against your narrative. Here is the text of the Second Amendment as written “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.” Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion of the court on District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 ruled that the Second Amendment is two parts: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Justice Scalia ruled that the second comma divided the Second Amendment into two parts and that part one informs part two and that we need gun rights because militias are necessary. Justice Scalia offered a rewrite to try and clear things up. Justice Scalia’s rewrite is “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is now the Supreme Court’s official legal interpretation of the Second Amendment. So let’s look at the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Second Amendment pertaining to gun rights. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Let me reiterate the last part SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The Constitution is a “living document” who’s true meaning is not fixed; and the courts have stated that it’s true meaning changes with the times and corresponding social climate. Perhaps we should start telling the gun grabbers who claim the Second Amendment only applies to muskets that the First Amendment only applies to printing presses and not the Internet, television, or radio. Another interesting aspect is the Fourteenth Amendment where it says “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Therefor state gun laws that go against the Second Amendment are unconstitutional according to the Fourteenth Amendment.
I will concede that a this is an opinion of a very accomplished judge. I might not have agreed with all of his opinions but he was a decent man with many on both sides of the aisle respecting him and his legal mind. I am not an American and don't agree with this opinion because this ruling will continue to deter many states and the federal government from implement laws that will prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. My opinion is that you need to pass a proficiency exam, have character references and a clean record to have a gun even for sport, plus very harsh penalties for gross negligence when it comes to guns (legally owned gun used in a criminal act like this one).
If congress tried to do what I suggest federally it would likely get shot down because of this ruling. It has to be federal because someone can easily go to a state with lax laws to bypass strict ones. Illinois, DC and California IIRC have strict laws but you can go to Indiana, Arizona, Nevada and Virginia, West Virginia to bypass them..
All of this is totally fine, but can someone be honest and admit that this occasional collateral damage of having this right is acceptable and its going to happen.
This is, in my opinion, the best opinion written by a Supreme Court Justice. I agree that people who shouldn't have guns shouldn't have them. However, how does one do that and not impact law abiding citizens? The fact is that you can't. Guns are just the tool, the weapon is the person with evil intent. Federally there is already a requirement to have a clean record. I am going from memory, but I believe it's no felonies, no domestic violence charges and no charges where the maximum penalty is over 2 years in jail. Again, I am going from memory on that, but some states are more strict. I do not disagree with harsh penalties for gross negligence, but realistically the percentage of legally owned guns used in a criminal act are very slim. Americans with a CCP are less likely to commit a crime than off duty cops, 11.5 per 100000 versus 102 per 100000. The rate per 100000 for the whole US population is 3813. Again, I am going from memory so I might be slightly off.
Your second paragraph describes a felony. Contrary to popular belief, you can't go to another state and buy a gun because it is a federal felony to sell guns across state lines. Here's how it legally plays out. Let's say I am in Nevada and see a gun I like at a shop. I ask them if they will ship to my FFL in Texas. If so, I reach out to my FFL in Texas and he sends a copy of his FFL to the person or shop in Nevada. At that time the person or shop in Nevada ships the gun with a shit ton of paperwork to my FFL in Texas. Once it's received I go to my FFL and at that point it is no different than me walking into the FFL and buying a gun. Again, we are talking legal sales here. Most states that I have looked at, including Indiana, after obama's false claim, do require a photo ID in order to conduct a "private transfer" which people falsely call the "gun show loophole." I've been to many gun shows, and the almost all of vendors there are actual FFL and gun shops which, again, makes it no different than walking into a gun store. Before it's brought up, I'll address the so called "Internet gun purchases" which really aren't. They work literally the same as I described above. I can't just go on Arms List, buy a gun, and have it shipped to my house. It works the same way as I described above. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and that needs to stop! It makes the anti-gun crowd look misinformed by the blatant lies they spread concerning gun purchases.