I was surprised by Bill O'Reilly's segment in which he made an argument in support of gun control.
>Video
youtu.be
What surprised me more however, was how he made the argument using the Constitution. I had to check the actual text of the 2nd amendment, because I was always under the impression that the 2nd amendment was basically this:
>"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Because that is how it is often presented, especially by pro-gun advocates, but that is only half of the sentence.
The full sentence is this:
>"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."
This is the argument made in part by Bill O'Reilly, that the purpose and means of the right to bear arms is clear:
>"a well regulated militia"
I learned to shoot a .357 at the age of twelve, my father gave me a .38 special when I turned 18 and I've shot everything from AR-15s to SKS and AK-47s. I no longer own a gun, but I am by no means anti-gun. However, I do feel somewhat misled on the 2nd amendment, particularly by groups like the NRA. The 2nd amendment is clear as to what it's purpose and means are, a "well regulated militia".
My father is a gun advocate and has always owned firearms and taught me at a young age how to responsibly handle firearms. He reminded me the other day that his political hero, Ronald Reagan, supported the semi-automatic assault weapons ban and even rallied Congressional Republicans to pass the assault weapons ban in 1994. However from the 90s into the 2000s, the NRA had adopted an uncompromising dogma and stronghold in the GOP.
What do you Sup Forumsfags think?