The need for self-defense naturally exists outside and inside the home, I would hold the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The Second Amendment does protect the right to people to possess weapons for self-defense in the home. That's what the Supreme Court said.
I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense.
We have to fulfill what the real meaning of the Second Amendment is: reasonable access to guns for self-protection and for hunting. And there's no room in America for these semiautomatic, automatic and other kinds of weapons that are simply designed to cause mass havoc.
Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This is not for law enforcement. This is for us. And, in fact, when you read that Constitution and the Founding Fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny.
As gun owners, my husband and I understand that the Second Amendment is most at risk when a criminal or deranged person commits a gun crime. These acts only embolden those who oppose gun ownership. Promoting responsible gun laws protects the Second Amendment and reduces lives lost from guns.
It would be refreshing to have a politician try to defend guns without any reference to the Second Amendment, but on the merits of guns.
When you shoot someone who is fleeing, it's not self-defense. It's an execution.
America has a right to the Second Amendment, but the people of America have a right to safety and the prevention of gun violence in their community.
For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments.