No. It is the right to a well maintained militia. I'm not against guns, but I want people to research the issues that they're protesting

The second amendment says [quote]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.[/quote] That clearly means that the authors believed that people who bear arms ought be in their respective militias, not owning automatic weapons for no good reason. Overall, I'm okay with people who've passed background checks owning some weapons (something like up to 5, though proper justification could sway me to a higher number), but I simply cannot justify anybody owning an AK-47 if they're not in the military. I guess SWAT officers and private security firms might use assault weapons as well, but I feel like in both cases, the heavy weapons don't need to be owned by individuals.

[quote][quote][quote]The 2nd amendment made you lose faith? Care to explain?[/quote][/quote][/quote]