Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?

[NuclearEnergy]

I have come across these video on YouTube of these so called "second amendment" acitivists carrying their AR-15's into public places like a Walmart, Starbucks or any other sort of private business. They seem more in the business of getting reactions from people. I just do not understand why they do this? Sure, the legal BAC is less than .08 but that does not mean it would be OK for me to be driving with a BAC of .0799999999999 

Also, there has been studies that the entire good guy with a gun thing is a huge myth. They found the majority of the time this good guy with the gun will either freeze, or get mistaken by as the perpetrator by the police.

I have zero problem with owning guns. But there is such a thing as taking something too far, and this is it. 


Also, one other thing. I would like to see someone who is middle eastern looking do this same exact thing. I guarantee you these open carry idiots would be calling them a terrorist. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naTSklJmB2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzw8jW0aCys

[Chad32]

The part that ignores the "well organized militia" section of the second amendment. Yes, the sane people who know that the founders weren't talking about automatic rifles will say we take the gun stuff too far. From what I've heard, it's mainly the NRA officials that push for no regulations on this stuff, because they're the ones really making money.

[NuclearEnergy]

The part that ignores the "well organized militia" section of the second amendment. Yes, the sane people who know that the founders weren't talking about automatic rifles will say we take the gun stuff too far. From what I've heard, it's mainly the NRA officials that push for no regulations on this stuff, because they're the ones really making money.

That is 100% true. I also would like to point out that if you even mention one word about COMMON SENSE gun control, you are automatically labeled a communist, socialist or an anti-America. Someone even told me that i should leave if I "hate guns". I seriously do not think the founding fathers had this in mind when they wrote the second amendment. I mean, look at the historical context of it.

[Tiberius]

The problem with the 2nd amendment is it's not very specific.

The amendment says that Americans have a right to "keep and bear arms" and that's about it. "arms" can cover almost any weapon imaginable.

The phrase "well related militia" is also not well defined either, especially in the context of the amendment. Its used as a reason for why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it doesn't state that all people who keep and bear arms need to belong to a well regulated militia either.

In short, it wasn't specific enough when it was written, and although I agree with the sentiment expressed in the amendment, it needs some more definition from court rulings.

[Chad32]

I always hate the "leave if you don't like it" line. If you don't like something, you should just abandon it, instead of trying to fix or improve it. How is that ever a good idea?

[chimp3]

I have come across these video on YouTube of these so called "second amendment" acitivists carrying their AR-15's into public places like a Walmart, Starbucks or any other sort of private business. They seem more in the business of getting reactions from people. I just do not understand why they do this? Sure, the legal BAC is less than .08 but that does not mean it would be OK for me to be driving with a BAC of .0799999999999 

Also, there has been studies that the entire good guy with a gun thing is a huge myth. They found the majority of the time this good guy with the gun will either freeze, or get mistaken by as the perpetrator by the police.

I have zero problem with owning guns. But there is such a thing as taking something too far, and this is it. 


Also, one other thing. I would like to see someone who is middle eastern looking do this same exact thing. I guarantee you these open carry idiots would be calling them a terrorist. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naTSklJmB2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzw8jW0aCys

Please tell me where in the Bhagavad Gita it says you can fly a helicopter over secure military airspaces?

[brewer]

I think you have a state/county/city problem there, not fed.

It's still stupid. If the people doing the carry are to stupid to wear a BPV, it's only a matter of time. 

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-...ing/#state

[chimp3]

The problem with the 2nd amendment is it's not very specific.

The amendment says that Americans have a right to "keep and bear arms" and that's about it. "arms" can cover almost any weapon imaginable.

The phrase "well related militia" is also not well defined either, especially in the context of the amendment. Its used as a reason for why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it doesn't state that all people who keep and bear arms need to belong to a well regulated militia either.

In short, it wasn't specific enough when it was written, and although I agree with the sentiment expressed in the amendment, it needs some more definition from court rulings.

Where in the second amendment does it say we have the right to keep and bear arms? It says the government has no right to impinge on that right.

[Chad32]

What's with the non sequitur?

[Minimalist]

The problem with the 2nd amendment is it's not very specific.

The amendment says that Americans have a right to "keep and bear arms" and that's about it. "arms" can cover almost any weapon imaginable.

The phrase "well related militia" is also not well defined either, especially in the context of the amendment. Its used as a reason for why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, but it doesn't state that all people who keep and bear arms need to belong to a well regulated militia either.

In short, it wasn't specific enough when it was written, and although I agree with the sentiment expressed in the amendment, it needs some more definition from court rulings.

Well, if you try to take it in a vacuum maybe you could make that case.  However, in 1787 everyone understood that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient and the constitutional convention was called to formulate a replacement.  Article VI of the Art. of Confederation does specify what is meant by a well-regulated militia and it sure as shit does not mean every asshole with a gun.

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/artic...ation.html

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

So, no.  The Founders fully understood what a well-regulated militia meant even if the NRA has forgotten.