I am actually a far leftist, and believe that the second amendment allows for a "well regulated militia" which we have, so I see no reason for gun ownership for citizens.
How are you doing far leftist liberal?
I am a fair and balanced and reasonable American. I know this, because most far leftist liberals tell me that I am not. I believe that our founding fathers made it very clear what the Second Amendment was for. It was so that far leftist liberals, such as yourself, cannot infringe on the natural right of individuals to defend themselves. I can readily tell from your post that you were able to read all the way up to the comma in the Second Amendment. However, you stopped reading at the comma. If you can get past that little hurdle (and I know you can do it if you just try), you will see that the Second Amendment also includes these very important words :
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
So, you see? People have the right bear arms (but you can only see that if you get past the comma - I know its hard, but I believe you can do it if you just try).
In other words, you have every right to have your own opinion that there is no reason for gun ownership for citizens, and you can publicly state your opinion - however, unfortunately for you, you cannot make your opinion a law, since that would be an infringement. Sorry about that my dear far leftist liberal friend.
Just because we do not agree on this issue, does not mean that we cannot be friends. I realize that we both see the world at completely different angles.
Your perception of the world is, what I like to call "fantasy". It is based on the premise that if guns were outlawed, for the private citizen, there would not be mass shootings, and murder would cease to exist. Your fantasy also indicates that soldiers, and only trained soldiers, should have weapons. After all, they are the only ones professional enough.
My perception of the world, on the other hand, is based on what I like to call "reality". Reality has nothing to do, at all, with your interpretation of the Second Amendment - which is called "fantasy'. It is based on facts, evidence, research and hard data. These four things - facts, evidence, research and data - all come into play when discussing reality. They are not needed when discussing fantasy.
When you clearly stated that you 'believe' the Second Amendment was
only intended for a well regulated militia, you dismissed a
fact. That fact was that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. now please repeat this 3x:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
It is also a fact, not a belief (which indicates fantasy), that "the people' are not a "militia". It is also another fact that the Second Amendment includes a very specific right for 'the people' - and that is they can keep and bear arms.
There are several other facts I would like to discuss with you if you wish to delve into this further. But first, I must ask you a question - is it a "fact' or a 'fantasy" that gun free zones make people safer?
The next topic I would like to discuss about our different world views will cover evidence, research and data in regards to gun free zones.
Thank you and have a nice night.
but considering your take on some other issues, I don't know why I should be.
Just put that in your holster instead of the gun and see what spawns from it. 
