Seems pretty clear to me, want to place limits on it, get support for a new amendment.

#2A

@freemo right on. And before someone posts the "well regulated militia" argument, the militia at that time was the able-bodied male population. The 2a is definitely about the general public being armed and trained to repel either invasion or tyranny.

If the Federal government wanted to take the 2a seriously, they should be expanding the Civilian Marksmanship Program and offering free rifle lessons in high school.

@mike805 The well regulated militia is clearly an exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause

@freemo also "the people"in the 2a definitely refers to the actual human beings living in this territory. So that quashes any "collective right" claim.

The use of "the people" to refer to some theoretical group right is really a Marxist invention. The founders said what they meant and meant what they said.

@mike805 @freemo the founders were not gods. Their conception of guns, militia, armies, people (who they thought mattered), rights (for those they throughout mattered) bear absolutely no relevance today. All of those have changed dramatically since then.

I might have a suggestion that could satisfy most of the people here:

**Problem:** The perpetrators in mass shootings are mainly "loners" with some unresolved issues.

**Solution:** To be able to legally buy a gun you need to be a member in good standing and have a permit from a "well-regulated militia" (a.k.a. a gun club or society).

So the responsibility for the security of a society is neither on the individual nor on the government, but on the society itself.

What do you think? Is everybody happy? You have your guns (as many as you wish) and the rest of us are a little bit less concerned we'll get shot at our place of work, learning, or praying.

@lmrocha @mike805 @freemo