Final answer:
The statement by Alex Jones on the Second Amendment's purpose is correct. The amendment is subject to debate, with different interpretations focusing on individual rights or the regulation of a militia. The Supreme Court has had significant influence on these interpretations over time.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement attributed to Alex Jones regarding the Second Amendment and its purposes, made during a 2013 interview with Piers Morgan, is indeed factually accurate. Jones emphasized that the amendment is not about duck hunting, but is there to protect against tyrannical government and street thugs, and he made a provocative comment about 1776 commencing again if there were attempts to take firearms away from the public.
The Second Amendment was created on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, and 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." There is much debate over its interpretation, with some emphasizing it guarantees an individual's right to own guns for purposes like self-defense within the home, as supported by the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Others focus on the "well regulated Militia" part, a view largely overturned by the same court case.
Over time, the Supreme Court has made landmark decisions interpreting the Second Amendment, balancing the right to keep and bear arms with governmental interest in regulating firearms for public safety. Cases such as United States v. Miller (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) reflect the evolving nature of this debate and the conflicting interpretations surrounding it.