Yes.
But rather than get into a long diatribe.
Go to the NRA website...
2006-07-11 15:30:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by J.D. 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It preserves the right to state militias, and prevents the federal government from excessive regulation of firearms.
There are two things to remember about the 2nd Amendment. First, its entire text: "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." Most gun-lobbyists gloss over the "well-regulated militia" part of the amendment.
The other thing is that, like most of the Bill of Rights, it only applies against the federal government. But unlike most of the Bill of Rights, it is not incorporated through the 14th Amendment against the states. That means it only limits federal regulation of firearms, not state or local laws.
There are two interpretations about how to apply the amendment. One is that it refers to a group right, protection for state-run militias against federal intrusion. This argument bases its premise on the fact that when the amendment was enacted, most states did not have state police and the national guard was pretty much exclusively run by the local states. This was also pre-civil war, when the issue was still undecided whether the states or the federal government should have more power.
The other interpretation ignores all of those issues around when the amendment was passed, and ignores the first half of the amendment to interpret it as a personal right to own guns. That's the NRA position. While that may be a perfectly valid position, I don't think it actually has much support from the constitution itself.
2006-07-11 22:30:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
To know the purposes of Amendment the Second, one must understand the frame of mind in which the authors wrote it. However, I will spare you the (probably, from your perspective) dry, boring history lesson and summarize the Founders' intentions for the Amendment:
1. To prevent crime. The more likely a potential victim is to be armed, the less likely it is that anyone other than the most hardcore, nothing-to-lose criminals will have the brass to try infringing on their rights to life, liberty, and property. The less likely a potential victim is to be armed, the more likely any criminal element, no matter how weak and unskilled, will take advantage of them. Don't believe me? Ask any police officer in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. To act as a buffer from foreign invasion. Yeah, I know. "How likely is that?" you ask. Well, it is more likely than you think. The terrorists are gearing up to invade, one or two at a time. The criminal and welfare elements of Mexico have been doing so for decades. And let's not forget our "friends," Communist China. First of all, they're COMMUNISTS!!! The entire purpose for Communism's existence is the annihilation of all free societies and the establishment of a worldwide Communist state, with all races, peoples and nations equal(ly enslaved to the government). Second, they have an army of 250 million. That's almost the entire population of the United States! You think they would hesitate to blow us away if they didn't need our economy to leech off of right now? Seriously, anyone that thinks that the Reds are anymore trustworthy than they were in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's is a moron. Right now, this country is the most vulnerable to foreign invasion it has been at any point in time since the War of 1812 (and no, I haven't forgotten World War II). But, by the blessings of Providence, no country I know of has its act together enough to take advantage. But how long will that last?
3. This third reason is, without dispute, the most important, both to the Founders, idealogically, and to us today, practically. The following is an often abridged quote from the Declaration of Independence, with the unfinished thought completed. (the numbers I added to help you understand the format used by President Jefferson) "We hold these Truths to be self-evident: (1)That all Men are created equal, (2)That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, (3)That among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness---(4)That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, (5) That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
If you can't decipher the meaning of that, then you should move to Cuba.
2006-07-11 22:59:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by libertyu9 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
What the second amendment allows for militia like the ones that fought most of our early wars to the right to bear arms. What this means is that private citizens have the right to arms to make up the natural militias to battle all enemies both foreign and domestic. I would be very afraid when Congress or individual states try and disarm the citizens so that they can not protect themselves from a corrupt government.
2006-07-11 22:32:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by andy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Coragryph is partially correct: It is intended to protect the private citizens right to keep and bear arms. The reason for this is the Founders of our nation, Madison in particular, wanted to ensure the gov't didn't abuse the citizenry. He, and the rest, knew that the nation needed protection from outside forces; i.e., the British. They also feared having a standing army that could seize power in a military coup. In making sure we as citizens were armed, we BECAME the militia that is supposed to defend our country from attack by outside powers. This was well before the 'National Guard' was set up. Further, Madison wanted the Fed. Gov't to understand that if voting didn't work, the people could rise up against them in armed rebellion as they had the British as a last resort.
2006-07-11 22:45:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lonnie P 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the 2nd Amendment means, like someone just said, that people have the right to rebel against their own government, then as far as I'm concerned, that was then (215 years ago) and this is now. I don't want any crazy people getting rebellious like the Confederate States and trying to wage war against our government. I do support the idea of a law-abiding individual's right to own a gun, but let's not get crazy about when and why to use them.
I believe (my opinion) that if your state legislature passes a law to ban all guns, if your Governor signs it, if the courts of your state uphold it, then you do not have a "right" to carry a gun. And if police officers come to you to confiscate your gun, and if you shoot them citing the 2nd Amendment and the Declaration of Independance as your "right" to do so, then I suspect that the Government will treat you the same way as Timothy McVeigh, and you should be.
2006-07-11 22:36:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The right to bear arms
2006-07-11 22:32:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by rockydriver22 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The right to bear arms
2006-07-11 22:30:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by persephene83 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means the citizens should have the ability to overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical.
2006-07-11 22:31:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I know what it says
2006-07-11 22:51:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋