Most Facebook Scholars Agree, Assault Rifles are not Protected Under the 2nd Amendment.

While many Americans are still struggling to make sense of the details and motives of the mass shootings which occurred recently in Atlanta and Boulder, second amendment scholars on Facebook are making it a point to battle a much different enemy; namely, misinformation.

"Look, the Constitution is absolutely clear", said Justin Andrews a Facebook Constitutional expert we spoke with. "Most people are simply too ignorant or illiterate to understand the truth, but a well regulated militia—as it's described in the Constitution--is the modern day equivalent of the National Guard. So the whole argument about the right to bear arms is pretty much a logical fallacy."

To Andrews point, we have the second amendment and it's not that long. Rather than engaging in loose talk, shouldn't we look at its text instead?

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.

Yet, the second amendment has been a point of contention and a matter of significant conjecture in recent American history. While it is true that early Americans would have seen the right to own and carrying a firearm, as a need—for both food and protection—and not a want, many Facebook scholars now assert that our current culture has outgrown the precedent and a new interpretation of the law must evolve.

"How many Americans are walking through the wilderness only to be approached by a bear or a mountain lion", said Andrews. "As culture evolves, so should our understanding of our freedoms and liberties. Our founding fathers understood this, and it's amazing to me that these stupid conservatives can't muster enough brain-power to understand rudimentary concepts like this."

What Andrews was referring to is the understanding that the 2nd Amendment is ultimately about the militia, not individual rights to own or carry a firearm (let alone a machine gun with the capacity to mow down an entire village).

"The main—indeed, almost exclusive—purpose of the second amendment was, in fact, to protect the rights of states to maintain and arm militias", said Andrews. "There’s certainly enough evidence to support an argument for some reference to personal possession—but no convincing proof that personal possession was the main focus, or that personal possession was intended to be unqualified."

This argument is shared, without exception, by all of the Facebook scholars we interviewed and were willing to cite in this story. And even further evidenced than that, we actually couldn't find a single Facebook scholar who suggested otherwise, that we were willing to cite in this story.

Therefore, it is safe to suggest that the irrational arguments which many conservatives and second amendment worshiping Americans who ran to social media yesterday—after President Biden used the mass shooting in Colorado as a reason to call for legislation banning  assault weapons—are not only ignorant but are also antiquated.

Not only does the Constitution deny any legal rights for individuals to own a firearm, it has also evolved with the American culture to the point where the only thing Americans need to feel safe today, is a government who cares deeply about their safety.

And thankfully, under President Biden, every American is well aware that nobody—including themselves—cares more about their safety than the President of the United States.