The threshold question in a Second Amendment challenge is one of scope: whether the Second Amendment protects the person, the weapon, or the activity in the first place.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
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.
Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.
The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.
The need for self-defense naturally exists outside and inside the home, I would hold the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home.
The most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment.
I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense.
I'm 100 percent behind the Second Amendment. I believe it's not just a hunting right. It's a right for everyone to carry their weapons.
I don't believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.
This isn't about deer hunting. The Second Amendment is about our right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves.
No opposing quotes found.