Can someone answer this sincerely?

Question

In the 2nd Amendment it says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is it now you have to have all these documents to possess a firearm. Isn't that breaking the constitutional amendment.

Answer 1

Not yet!

Answer 2

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The right to keep and bare arms without infringement does quite literally mean the government has no business in your quest to purchase/sell/exchange, or carry a firearm. Why is there so many laws on the book to infringe a person's 2nd amendment right? Well you must also understand that once a person has committed a felony they no longer have the rights granted to us by the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 amendments of the constitution). So then how do you enforce the laws that a felon can not have a firearm, without infringing on a citizen's rights? It is a similar concept to criminal profiling, you can not discriminate. So you have to check them all. There are laws in some states which do hinder your rights to purchase certain types of firearms, that is flat out unconstitutional, however a simple background check before a purchase, though is technically against the 2nd amendment, is probably for the good of the general population (as even a legitimate gun owner does not want a criminal being able to buy a gun legally and commit a crime with the use of that firearm, leaving an even worse stigma on gun owners). I am not so against the idea that people should be checked for criminal backgrounds, but I don't think people should be limited to what they can or can not own.

Answer 3

The problem is that the Framers, while they generally drafted the text of the Constitution with great wisdom and clarity, really screwed up when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Several of the Bill of Rights' provisions are absolutely logically unintelligible - the second and fourth amendments prominent among them.

The Second Amendment states in FULL: "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."

The question is: what relationship does the second half ("right of the people ... shall not be infringed") have to the first half (about the militia)? Is the first half purely precatory? Or is it an essential condition precedent to the second half?

Given that the draftsmanship was so poor, it seems to be a reasonable compromise that gun ownership is largely permissible, albeit with various regulations.

Answer 4

The amendment is to form a militia which people find troubling.

The amendment means that military type weapons should be legal.

It's funny that people say not AK-47s because they weren't around in the 1700s but when it comes to freedom of the press they automatically include the internet.

All freedoms are being eroded starting with amendments 1 and 2.

Answer 5

first off criminals dont go to gun shows or gun stores to buy their weapons unless they have a false identity. In that case crack down on identity theft, and the ILLEGAL arms market. Banning "junk" guns is also a bad idea, as now you are forcing criminals to use more reliable more expensive guns......

I believe that most states are in violation of the 2nd amendment. And you can find writings of the framers of the constitution and bill of rights where they express the true intention of the 2nd amendment. That intention is to arm the people in the event that the government becomes too large, too powerful, and attempts to control the people.

Answer 6

Well it all started out with a good idea. Keep guns out of the hands of the "bad guys". The problem is that most people only half pay attention to what is actually going on in politics. Those that had a different agenda (disarm the public) used the fear that was being "fed" to the masses and got through legislation that makes it very difficult for anyone to get a gun. Of course the funny part is that the "bad guys" don't usually get their guns the legal way in the first place.

Answer 7

The need for documents should not be considered an ''infringement''. There are alot of supposed constitutional rights that the government regulates even more than ''document needing''. Try opening an adult, gay theater next to a church in your neighborhood, and claim first amendment rights of free speech. See how far it gets you.

Answer 8

I don't believe that we should treat the amendment as dogma. Laws must adapt to serve society in the present. Eradicating the need for "documents" in order to adhere to some romantic notion of our forefather's intent, would result in unnecessary violence.
The Constitution, the Magna Carta, The Bible, The Koran etc., are all historic documents written by men to serve the needs of their own lifetime, not as some unbending set of rules to be adhered to for time everlasting.

Answer 9

Because when the Constitution was written, Arms meant pistols, muskets and swords....

Not AK-47s, Uzi's, Mark 19 Grenade launchers, Surface to Air Missles and Tanks.

Its really semantics. Which do you think is better, making it harder for criminals to get guns or everyone having guns.

If Criminals can easily get guns like everyone else, then the only other solution is to get bigger, better, faster and more powerful weapons... and as Sonny and Cher once said... the beat goes on.

Answer 10

A ll that infringed means is that you have the right to bear arms though it cannot be taken away. I live in a town called Wilmette Illinois where it is actually "illegal" to own a handgun. Which is total B.S and the day that they remove this, I am getting myself a gun. And I am a democratic liberal.

Answer 11

I think we need to know who's got all the firearms out there. I'm all for having firearms but I also think it's ok to go through all the paperwork. Make it harder for all the crazy ppl, gang members, etc. to not get one. It's for our own safety. Some ppl arent responsible enough to own a firearm anyway.