THE SECOND AMENDMENT: MY OPINION

My interest in writing something on this was piqued by an ad I saw in the newspaper the other day. One of the local gun shops was advertising an assault rifle for just over $1,000 and highlighted the fact that while IDs were required, there was no waiting period!
This was not being sold in a gun show in which there are even less requirements.

A few days later, guess what? The ad for the gun show appeared which highlighted the “get ‘em while they are hot” mentality! No background checks since the sales are from person to person and no dealers are technically involved. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

A direct quote from the ad: “New administration will attempt to make changes to firearms regulations! GET YOUR GUNS WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!”

Do you or does anyone really believe that the “new administration” is going to eliminate the right to have a gun? Why would they even want to do this? Lets be realistic here people. The Second Amendment does exist and has been supported by the Supreme Court. However, I do believe that some changes need to be made in the purchase process and in what guns might be readily available.

Before I go on, let’s get some of the semantics and technicalities out of the way. Here is what the Second Amendment actually says:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights protecting the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[3] Self-defense is a central component of the right enumerated in the amendment.[4]
Specifically: “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.”

As you cannot help but know, there is a lot of controversy about people carrying guns. What is a gun versus a rifle versus a handgun versus an automatic weapon versus an assault rifle?
What are concealed weapons and non concealed weapons?

No doubt, everyone has an opinion as to whether people should be carrying guns of any sort around or not. The recent publicity of Plaxico Burress, wide receiver for the New York Giants football team is an example of carrying guns gone bad!

You and I can have our opinions but what does the Supreme Court say about having guns?
The primary U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases are United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), United States v. Miller (1939) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
United States v. Cruikshank
Main article: United States v. Cruikshank
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that because "[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…", the federal government may not punish individuals for depriving citizens of their right to bear arms. The courts did not recognize the doctrine of incorporation at this point in the 19th century.[77] Significantly with respect to the meaning of the amendment, the court found that the Second Amendment prohibited the national government from infringing on the right of individuals "to bear arms for a lawful purpose". Though many of the federal rights delineated in the federal Bill of Rights have subsequently been incorporated by the Court as rights against the states, the Court has not done so for the Second Amendment.
Presser v. Illinois
Main article: Presser v. Illinois
In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, holding the Second Amendment to limit the authority only of the federal government.
United States v. Miller
Main article: United States v. Miller
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons, ruling:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Miller is often cited by gun-rights advocates, because the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of "ordinary military equipment".
District of Columbia v. Heller
Main article: District of Columbia v. Heller
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, decided on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
The Court held that the amendment's prefatory clause serves to clarify the operative clause, but neither limits nor expands the scope of the operative clause. Justice Stevens, in his dissent, called the majority reading "strained and unpersuasive," and says that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia, and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation. Justice Scalia, in the Opinion of the Court, called Justice Stevens' interpretation of the phrase "to keep and bear arms" incoherent and grotesque.[78]
Further, The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 initially provided a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases, which expired on November 30, 1998. It was replaced by a mandatory, computerized criminal background checking system to be conducted prior to any firearm purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer.So, you have to have your background checked if the seller of a gun is a federally licensed firearms dealer. Well what about buying a gun in a gun show? Wallah! No background check, just get them while they are hot! (No pun intended!)

So, finally, what do I think? It is an easy decision for me. If any of us want to have a gun or two or three, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is having all kinds of assault rifles that are only good for killing people. What other purpose do these guns have? Not for shooting deer; not for shooting turkeys, and not for shooting any other kind of animal!

The NRA likes to say that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people”. Well, guns do kill people; where do you think the bullets come from? From a gun that’s where.

The subject of a concealed weapon is less clear. If you pass a background check and testing, then maybe that is ok but I don’t think you should, in any circumstances, be able to walk around with any kind rifle on your body; concealed or otherwise.

So, in summary, let’s get the assault rifles off the streets. Let’s also clean up and tighten up the laws around registering and regulating the sale of firearms. There are too many loopholes, especially the gun show/flea market sale of guns.
Finally, in my humble opinion, the NRA needs to recognize that guns do kill people and help with better registration and regulation laws. At the present time, the NRA is more on the side of the criminals and less on the side of law abiding citizens.

What do you think?