The Second Amendment of the US Constitution needs to be changed. It was written in the late 18th century where the "...right to bear arms..." held a totally different meaning, although the members of the idiotic NRA will say differently. The whole "...regulated Militia..." argument is really only valid today to Neo-Nazis and marginal groups / gangs who want to overthrow the government.
Wanna leave areal legacy after your presidency, Barrack? Ban guns.
Actually over time the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has been interpreted differently by the Supreme Court of the USA. Here is the clause:
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.
Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment:
- The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, was that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather, it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia.
- The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", held that the Second Amendment recognized some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia while actively participating in the organized militia’s activities.
- The third, known as the "standard model", was that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Previously the first two interpretations were advanced but recent SCOTUS decisions have adopted the third individual rights view in District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Heller, had this to say:
A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.