There has been a lot of dicsussion revolving around the second amendment and its interpretation. It is frustrating to see so many people argue for a point that is not actually made, and it is my hope that this reaches enough people to set the record straight. The second amendment states:
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.
People keep saying that this means it is only legal to keep and bear arms by individuals who are part of a well regulated militia. This is inaccurate, and has been clarified by the Supreme Court (2008, District of Columbia v. Heller). The court ruled that the prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" stated the intent for the Amendment, but does not place any restrictions on the actual scope of the operative clause, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/).
This is not an opinion piece. This is not providing any insight into my views on firearms. This is just an attempt to educate Americans, who seem to be so ignorant and opinionated that they refuse to research legal rulings before arguing the meaning of something. Please, do your research before claiming your opinion as fact.