+87 (second amendment interpretation 62)

I am usually very capable of viewing things from the opposing side. However, I still cannot bring myself to imagine the Second Amendment reflecting, not even just neutral, but the contrary to seeing it reflecting wide consensus that there is a right to have arms in which the government should not interfere. It is very hard to imagine such alleged intention being expressed that way. Even if one can bring from here and there views from that time suggesting the existence of such impression or conception, it is not hard to see the Amendment as reacting to such conception instead of being emanating from it. I could have supported this view with mere assignment of purpose for the arms keeping and bearing right. But the Amendment provided more than that. Take a look at the whole amendment. The fact that it gave right to arms while a militia is necessary to the security of a free state should not eclipse seeing controlling the right to arms within which that came expressed. That control on the right to arms was expressed by assigning a purpose ( "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and giving it precedence over execution ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed").

I feel strongly that the gun culture here is contrary to the inclination shown by the Amendment and guns were made into a golden calf for this nation.