Is the purpose of the 2nd amendment to preserve our right to hunt deer, or violently overthrow the government?

Question

The proffered argument that automatic weapons aren't useful in sporting, and therefore should be illegal, seems specious. How can we democrats, defenders of personal liberty, side with gun control?

Answer 1

The 2nd Amendment, along with the other Amendments from the Bill of Rights, were designed to overthrow the federal government if it became too oppressive. Look at the entire Bill of Rights...almost all of the Amendments would be ESSENTIAL to overthrow a Government.

The individuals responsible for the Bill of Rights were opposed to a federal government. They insisted that the Bill of Rights be attached before they would ratify the Constitution. They are usually referred to today as the "Anti-Federalists", and those who were for the federal government were known as the "Federalists".

You can find some of the writings of the Anti-Federalists online, and there are some books printed that have their collective writings in them. Read them and you'll understand their thoughts, fears, and reasonings behind the Bill of Rights.

Most people today, including the ACLU, are IGNORANT about the Bill of Rights. They were not designed to be "personal" rights (so to speak), but designed to overthrow the government...long may they stand.

Answer 2

A Democrat cannot honestly, legally, or ethically force gun control on a nation who specificallly is guaranteed the right to a gun in the nation's founding document. It's that simple. Anything else is either stupidity, socialism, or voter pandering. As everyone should know, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and has everything to do with protecting individual rights and the people from its government.

It seems to me that the Democrats are no longer the defenders of personal liberty - at least not for everyone. The Democrats seem to be practicing a sort of one-sided liberty. For example, Christians have been suppressed so others won't be offended by them. So where is the defense of Christians' personal liberty? Following this one-sided liberty concept, Democrats believe they're protecting the liberty of non-gun owners by suppressing the rights of gun owners. Not only is this wrong, it's unconstitutional. I think it's this one-sided personal liberty issue that is causing Democrats so many problems. The Democrats believe the Constitution can be tinkered with, adjusted, parts of it ignored. Nobody else believes this.

Answer 3

The second amendment starts: "A well-regulated militia". The only logical meaning to the amendment was to allow the States to have well-regulated militias as a counter-weight to the Federal government's right to have a standing army.

Therefore, the Second Amendment does not grant an individual any right to own, possess or use a firearm except as a member of a well-regulated militia.

The Second Amendment does not require a State to have a militia, and does not mandate that a State must allow any form of firearm ownership.

Therefore, a State may fully regulate firearm use and ownership.

It would also appear that as the Second Amendment merely allows States to have well-regulated militias that the Federal government has the full right to regulate firearms under the Commerce Clause as long as the Federal government does not prohibit the use of firearms by the States' well-regulated militias.

Answer 4

The Second Amendment was originally written to give citizens the right to bear arms in order to defend themselves - and not have the established military being the only ones to have guns. Over the years, court decisions have interpreted the Constitution to allow citizens (except convicted felons) the right to own weapons - regardless of what they are or what they are capable of doing. Though there is no reason for people to have several types of weapons - the judges have ruled that they can - even if they are just collectors, for their own protection or for sport.

Answer 5

The 2nd amendment is suppose to allow citizens to own guns and yes part of the main reason was that they knew that if the government ever got too powerful or stoped working for the people, the people would have to have weapons to be able to protect thierself from the Government

So yes you would think that the democrats would support ownership of guns and the democrats would be against it,

Answer 6

I personally believe that the best interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it protects the group right to state-run militias, not the individual right to guns. Obviously, there are a lot of different views on this.

Answer 7

No it does no longer. the 2d modification, form of translated into "modern-day" words through a up to date US branch of Justice study states: "an exact armed citizenry, being had to the safe practices of a loose state, the right of the individuals to save and undergo hands, shall no longer be infringed." As we may be able to work out, nicely regulated in 18th century talk became analogous to a nicely regulated or "precise" timepiece. The military became...the individuals, the in a position bodied citizenry. Nowhere can we see that the 2d modification is for searching applications. that is for battling applications. And although that is politically incorrect to say it, that is real. the 2d modification certain the right of the individuals to be armed for a strive against.

Answer 8

I didn't know you democrats were "defenders of personal liberty" as you side with gun control, and the ACLU. Oh, that's what you're saying in your question, in a round-about way. Good job! And God Bless you, no matter what the ACLU allows!

Answer 9

i think the purpose was for protection of onself and one's property. gun control LIMITS this freedom- it doesn't end it. some people just shouldn't have a gun. how do we tell who those individuals are? there has to be some kind of system.

Answer 10

A good democrat talks him/herself out of things.