What's your take on the Second Amendment (right to bear arms)?

Question

The second amendment to the US Constitution: "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."

Obviously, the more politically conservative you are, the more you dislike gun control and support the right to bear arms to be unregulated, while liberals tend to want more controls and regulations. However, without being too political, do you objectively believe that gun control saves lives? Are the regulations we have today in the US (assault rifle laws, registration, concealed weapons laws etc) sufficient or not enough?

Do you believe it is more the person who is prone to killing and not the gun's fault? If guns were non-existent (suspend your disbelief here) would crime go down or would those people just use something else to kill?

Also, do you think the Second Amendment was meant to say ONLY militiamen and women could have guns? Or every citizen?

Answer 1

If someone wants to kill, they will kill. I will give up my guns when all of the bad people give up theres .In other words, i will always have guns

Answer 2

Let's break this down into smaller pieces.

"do you objectively believe that gun control saves lives?"

No. Controls, laws, and regulations are nothing more than words on paper. They don't physically exist, and they don't actually 'do' anything. If laws and regulations actually prevented crime then obviously rape, murder, kidnapping etc would no longer exist. Also if laws could actually save lives, then why not just make it illegal to die?

"Do you believe it is more the person who is prone to killing and not the gun's fault?"

Of course. A gun is nothing more than a tool, it is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything or acting on its own. People are responsible for crimes committed, not the tools that they use to commit those crimes. A carpenter is credited with building a house, people don't say that his saw, drill, or hammer built it.
If you put a gun on a table with a box of ammunition, it will sit there until someone moves it. A gun will not load itself, aim itself, or fire, on its own.

"If guns were non-existent (suspend your disbelief here) would crime go down or would those people just use something else to kill?"

Crime would stay the same. There was crime before the invention of the firearm, and there continues to be crimes committted that do not involve firearms.

"Also, do you think the Second Amendment was meant to say ONLY militiamen and women could have guns? Or every citizen?"

I've never heard anyone claim that only women and militia could have guns. That is a new one to me.

The 2nd amendment states that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But is qualified with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", as being one of the key reasons that this right shall not be infringed. I believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right of every citizen.

Often times people will claim that the militia is the National Guard, funny, considering the guard didn't exist until over 100 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

U.S. Code Title 10 section 311 shows that the militia is ALL able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45. (with some exceptions to include, active duty status, religious objection, etc)

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Answer 3

The problem with trying to define the intent of the second amendment is that times have changed and along with them our whole society as well as our military structure. This fact might seem to support arguments for revising or abolishing the second amendment, but this would be a disasterous mistake. The second amendment was all about self defense. Defense against foreign invasion AND defense against oppressive government. Now we have a standing army and a national guard so some want to argue that this satisfies the need for a well regulated militia. What they are forgetting is the spirit of the amendment which was really to empower people to resist tyranny and allow INDIVIDUALS a means of self defense. The very act of disarming citizens has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. Beware of big brother who says "don't worry, we will protect you". We live in a republic, but there are forces at work who would change that. Should anyone attempt to dismantle our constitution it is important that individually armed citizens acting with other armed citizens have the means to resist. I say this guardedly as we all know that there are many who claim the current administration has violated the constitution ( I disagree ), and at any given time there are a number of revolutionary groups who feel justice is on their side. Though it would seem unlikely, it is possible with the current state of world affairs that the fate of our American democratic society may depend on the resistance of a relative few individuallly armed citizens fighting either foreign invasion or revolt from within. If anyone were to attempt to abolish the second amendment I'm afraid that that would be the first sign that such an action was necessary. As the saying goes " You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers". As far as crime is concerned, there is no question that too many criminals have guns, but how do you stop it. Criminals don't obey gun laws any more than they obey other laws. More restrictive gun laws just make obtaining firearms more difficult for law abiding citizens. Many liberals attack the NRA for opposing more restrictive laws, but the NRA has statistics heavily on their side. Firearms ownership by law abiding citizens has saved far more lives than have been lost due to accidents. Crime prevails in cities where gun ownership has been banned. Criminals will always find guns or other weapons to carry out their misdeeds. There are many who understandably are frightened of guns. They've never received training with them and they've never had to use them to save their own life. These people in a kneejerk reaction to crime often advocate banning guns enmasse. They see the guns as the problem, not the shooter. They are wrong. We can not allow them to suceed in changing our constitution.

Answer 4

The original milita was a bunch of civilians. Yes, I beleive that the average citizen should be allowed to own weapons. I was raised in an ultra conservative family. I was shooting M60's at age 12. I loved going out and target practicing (with my .38 and .22 long rifle. Both were Christmas presents) It was a skill my dad taught me. Because I got really good, it boosted myself esteem and help me to concintrate and focus. My dad hounded safety into my head. I can still resite the four laws of gun safety without thinking. Guns are not dangerous, it's the lack of knowledge, the deteriation of morals and values, and general common sense that has given guns a bad name.

Gun control saves lives? Not really. Cain didn't have a gun to kill Abel. No, men kill men when they think they have the right. Making a law against buying or selling weapons only works on law-adbiding citizens. People are after guns for more than taget practicing,etc., probably are not going to listen to a law about waiting fifteen days and registering it. I understand the arguement that if guns where not so easily accessable that there would be less crimes. If people didn't drive cars under the influence, do drugs, raised their kids with good morals and a understanding of the value of human life, there would be less crimes, too.

I think the politians are trying their best to fix the after-effects of the real issue. A gun on a table will not shoot anyone. It isn't until the man that just caught his wife cheating and lost control, or the gangbanger that just wants a little respect becasue he doesn't get any at home, or the kid who is just curious picks it up, that the once peice of modeled metel becomes a deadly weapon and a hazard to society.

I'm not sure if that's what you were after, but that's where I stand.

Answer 5

The Second Amendment Is all that protects the rest of the BILL Of RIGHTS from the Government . How can you have any RIGHT , without the means to defend it ?
What you are unable or unwilling to defend ,you will lose .
Gun control does not save lives , it costs them . When people of bad intent have no fear of resistence ,what's to hold them back ?
Actually most killings do not involve a gun , most are blunt instrument or knife . Now ,if the victim had been armed , would he have been a victim ?
The MILITIA LAW of 1786 , All citizens , Are the Militia .
Short version, but you get the drift, you are the militia, as am I .

Answer 6

Everywhere in the Constitution where the "right of the people" is mentioned, it has been held that that is an individual right.

Therefore, I believe the US Constitution guarantees each of us the right to bear arms.

Gun control laws actually tend to increase the rate of violent crime. Criminals operate more freely in the knowlege they will not encounter an armed citizen.

Take a look at the crime rate in Washington DC. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. And, big surprise here, DC is referred to as being the "Murder Capitol of the World."

Various states have more lenient gun control laws. Some states are known as "shall issue" states where the County Sheriff shall issue a concealed weapons permit to any citizen who requests one if there is no reason to disqualify him.

Guess what the violent crime rate is in those states?

There is a lot of truth in the saying "God created man, Colonel Colt made them equal."

There is also a lot of truth in the saying "Guns don't kill, people kill."

Before guns were invented, people used swords, knives, clubs, bare hands and any other weapon to kill other people. In the places where guns are highly restricted today, people use knives, axes, clubs, bare hands etc to kill and injure each other.

Guns by themselves do not kill.

Gun control laws make it safer for criminals to operate. If I am bigger than you or tougher than you and I decide I want your wallet, what are you going to do? If I have a reason to suspect you might be armed, I will seek a weaker (unarmed) victim, or I will take up another line of work.

Answer 7

Liberals are anything goes people. Conservatives don't spend and wear plain clothes. They want everyone to be alike and abide by rigid rules. Liberals and conservatives should know that the real strength of the country is with the people. Education and health issues will make the country stronger so the people will be able to use guns for their defense and the defense of the country.

I can't say what is liberal or conservative ... left or right about everything, but for me; give me liberty with Patrick Henry. It has been shown that when everyone is armed the crime rate goes down. Also, we my just very well need that gun in the house to defend the country with our army being held hostage in the desert for the next 2000 years.

Answer 8

Since I am a conservative, white, male, Christian, middle-aged, Red-state, Republican who has a concealed carry permit and 40 handguns, you might guess I am NOT in favor of gun control (unless it involves hitting where you aim). Laws don't make people do the right thing, they make it possible to prosecute those who don't. Idiots on the left think that we can throw enough laws at problems and make them disappear --it won't work. IF (big, monster IF) you could take away all guns, the bad guys still have knives, baseball bats, broken beer bottles, etc to do harm, which they would. The Second Amendment is crucial to our way of life and should be protected, especially with the terrorist threat. These people are already embedded in our society and one day...

Answer 9

It's constitutional and I do it. My wife had a concealed weapons permit in her last state (Michigan) and we are both going for one here.
To the rational mind, it is without question that if a citizen is armed, and and arms in their home, they will be safer and have the ability to better protect their familites. That was obvious from the start but many westerners have been brainwashed into fear, thus opening themselves up to more crime against themselves and being at the mercy of the criminal (who has no problem assaulting you with HIS arms).
If you ask the countries' citizens about their lives, where personal arms are not allowed, they would tell you the terror they are living in without the right of self-defense.

Answer 10

I think it clarifies the rules for militias set forth in Article I Sections 8 and 10, that they can be armed even if under state control.

My interpretation (not the current legal interpretation) is that is should only apply to those in active service in a regulated state militia (national guard, state police, etc).

However, remember that the 2nd Amendment only applies against federal regulation of firearms, because it is not incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment. So, the states are free to place any restrictions they want, subject to their own state constitutions.

As to the other parts of the question, I generally oppose government regulation unless absolutely necessary. I believe the best way to handle gun control is to license gun users, the same way we license drivers.

Make them pass a test and carry an ID that says they know how to safely use, handle and fire guns. Make them get insurance against accidental damage they cause. And if someone is not otherwise breaking the law, and has a valid license, then they can carry a gun. But if someone breaks the law using a gun, and isn't properly licensed to use it, drastically increase the penalty involved (example: +10 years for semi-automatic or revolvers, +25 years for automatic and military weapons).

That won't hurt law-abiding citizens, but it will put a serious crimp in the use of guns for illegal purposes.

Answer 11

properly, it relatively is considerable first to observe that the invoice of Rights did no longer record our rights so as of value. yet secondly, because your question is touching directly to the "top to maintain and undergo arms" indexed interior the 2d exchange, it is likewise considerable to observe that the 2d exchange does not assure the inalienable top to maintain and undergo arms. It basically does not. in certainty, the sole way it does say it is while you're taking lots of the words out. It says “a properly-regulated militia, being needed for the protection of the unfastened state... the government shall no longer infringe.” The words “regulated” and “militia” are interior the 1st sentence. i do no longer think of the Framer's have been questioning of three men in a keep away from Durango. did you already know that in case you integrate the populations of great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you have have been given a inhabitants greater or less the scale of the USA. We had 32,000 gun deaths final 3 hundred and sixty 5 days and that that they had 112. Do you think of it relatively is via fact individuals are greater homicidal by utilising nature? Or do you think of it relatively is via fact those men have gun administration regulations?