“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.”

So, Second Amendment advocates feel that students who protest for common sense guns controls, are infringing on other people’s right to keep and bear arms, correct?

Then I have a couple of clarifying questions:

1. This Amendment addresses the fact that the people have a right to keep and bear Arms. And it does so because Arms were deemed necessary to secure a free State. But it also clarified that this is for purposes of a well regulated Militia. Someone please explain to me how you, or other gun owners you know, are being well regulated? And what regulations do you abide by in your Militia?

2. Our Constitution, to which these Amendments were added to, was created for many reasons. One of the main reasons that is spelled out in the Preamble, is to “insure domestic Tranquility”. When an entire country is divided, and when physical violence and death become commonplace in a society, wouldn’t you say that it violates the domestic Tranquility a touch? And knowing that the founders felt domestic Tranquility was important enough to mention so many years before the Second Amendment was inserted into the document, shouldn’t it be our primary concern?

3. Many gun owners claim that there weapons are for protecting themselves and their families. Again, if you reference the Preamble in conjunction with the Second Amendment, aren’t you supposed to be providing for the common defence?

4. And finally, why do you feel that the proper way to defend one’s self is with a firearm, rather than by protesting something? Both are protected by our Constitution, and both have been shown to have positive and negative effects.

Just a little ammo for thought…