Being this is a Democratic site, is there any ultimate proof what issue this amendment was framed around.

I believe that it was a law to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government by allowing them to have arms and form militias for that purpose.

It kills me that 99% of Americans simply don't even know what the second amendment is.
They dont realize it that I find patriotism and pride in that amendment.
They think it is soley about protecting private property.

Is my interpretation, one that I take great pride in accurate, is that what the constitution intended?

"The question for Democrats (and all Americans) is:  If the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, (and/or guarantees military supplies to an 18th-century "well-regulated militia", that has since been replaced by the U.S. Armed Forces)  what arms do Americans feel the need to bear in order to protect themselves; and from whom, from what?"

Denny,

The USSC disagrees with you:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/heller-disc ussion-board-miller-colt-45s-and-natural -law/print/

"One aspect of the Heller majority opinion that has not yet attracted the attention of commentariat, but may be greatly important of the long run, is the presence of natural law.

Heller reaffirms a point made in the 1876 Cruikshank case. The right to arms (unlike, say, the right to grand jury indictment) is not a right which is granted by the Constitution. It is a pre-existing natural right which is recognized and protected by the Constitution.

Heller moves self-defense from the shadowy limbo of the Ninth Amendment into the bright uplands of the Second Amendment. It is now beyond dispute, in an American court, that self-defense is an inherent right, and that it is protected by the United States Constitution."

So, the majority decision, once and forall, said the ammendment DOES NOT apply only to the idea of the militia, but to the individual rights for protection.

That is what Obama is refering to.

Notice, Heller DID NOT outlaw 'reasonable gun regulations" but, it did set precident that largly agrees with what Obama has said.

And, I agree with the poster above. As with the other basic bill of rights acts, the founding fathers were trying to protect us against a totalitarian government.

So, while there IS need for sensible gun control, DC clearly overstepped it's bounds with the first ban, and was just asking to get clobbered in the court.

Interestingly enough, they have come back with a new idea:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=heller+d ecision

And this one seems more likely to stand consitutional muster.

Nice diary, good analysis. reccd.

Look I know America has a problem with violence, not a problem with guns (although they are the best tool for human on human violence).

I dont think America will lose its guns, but we need to look to our neibors in the north and ask ourselves "Why do they have as many guns and no murders"?

Also I hate to say it, but as a resident of Baltimore/DC I must say I ALWAYS supported the ban.

Baltimore is a SMALL city and with about 400 murders a year, and thousands of guns fired errantly your chance of catching a bullet is high.  Even in my suburban highschool there was almost on violent attack via guns every year.

DC, while also having a huge murder and STD epidemic (did I mention Bmore is syphilis capital for years now) but it is also our nations capital.
This might make a neocons blood boil, but I believe DC should have no civilian guns.  
There are a million reasons but here is one that is Democratic red meat:

Let DC be the example to the world that America could one day change.

Agree or not, handguns are illegal in almost all 1st and even some 2nd world countries (Mexico is a great example).

I dunno, it seems like Gun Control and violence are just part of a huge laundry list that Bush, Iraq, and defeating Bush's 3rd term have pushed to wayside.

I can see how the tragedy in TN can raise the question of gun control in this country, but in actuality, gun control has nothing to do with this horrible incident. No gun control law under even the most extreme scenario would have kept this man from having a shotgun. England has some pretty tough gun control laws and even there many people own shotguns.

You are so exactly right on.  When the pro-gun people (and the media does this too) refer to the second amendment, they always just say it's "the right to bear arms."  They always leave out the critical clause of the amendment, upon which the "right to bear arms" depends: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. .."

Also note:  the word "well-regulated" is there.  They always just conveniently leave that out too. The second amendment is talking about a collective need for the state/nation to defend itself from enemies.  It is decidedly NOT speaking about a right to carry guns, hidden or otherwise, in our public streets, in our supermarkets or into our classrooms.

Fixing poverty is the #1 way to reduce gun violence in this country.  

But 1A is understanding a cultural problem.  We worship machismo and violence.  And while the vast majority of us may be able to see those things in pop culture without emulating them, in a country of 300 million, you're going to have those that are different.

I feel/want and do own the following:

AR-15 semi-auto
AK-47 assault rifle
M-14
Glock 19 (just sold for the Glock 23)
M1911A1
Taurus 100B
S&W .380
Barrett REC7
Benelli M4 shotgun

and of course I also load and press my own ammo.

2nd ammendment...well I believe in it, and think the SCOTUS ruling was right but didn't go far enough.

Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  And if there had been another individual who had been armed there, they could have killed that wack job or at the least chased him off before he killed anyone.