How did this get best answer?

Question

This explanation of the framers' intent with the second amendment is laughable. I love how he does not quote the second amendment itself but rather puts quotes around language that he made up. I call shenanigans.


Have a read for yourself:

"A very, very brave lawyer, with a couple of weeks of legal experience should be able to argue successfully against the 'Right to bear arms' section of the American Constitution, since it says, in effect, "...shall have the right bear arms in the absence of a standing army..." In other words, the men who wrote the document, realising that their new country did not yet have a formal, permanent army, made provision for a properly constituted civilian militia to bear arms.

Obviously their thinking was that an armed militia would act as a defence should their country be attacked by foreign forces, and as soon as the US Army was formally established the need for armed civilians would disappear."

Answer 1

Because any moron can ask a question and then choose a horrible Best Answer.

I don't know what Constitution he's reading, but it's not the same one as me. The one I'm familiar with says the people have the right to bear arms.

The framers weren't awaiting the formation of a standing army. They didn't want a standing army at all. That's why the army can only have funding for 2 years at a time. That's written into the Constitution.

But the main problem with this answer is that it fails to understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is about limiting the power of the government. It's not about national security.

Answer 2

The second amendment was created so that the people could have their firearms. It is very plainly suggested in the wording of the amendment and in all of the writings of the Founding Fathers especially the Federalist Papers.

The second amendment was written to ensure that you had the right to defend yourself from the tyranny that the government could dish out, they had seen that at the hands of the British government.

As for the "in the absences of the the standing army" line, I need to go back to seventh grade civics because I do not remember that being in the Constitution. In fact all of the documents I have read regarding the Founding Fathers they did not believe in standing armies, so why would they be anxiously awaiting the standing army that hey did not believe in?

This is a typical example of the thoughts and actions of the left, make it up if you do not have the facts. They can even eliminate rights and still call Republicans Fascists

I guess the answer to your initial question is that Liberals; who are more than well represented on Answers regardless of whether or not the answer even makes sense.

Answer 3

SHENANIGANS!

That certainly wasn't a quote from the Second Amendment. It says:

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. [sic]

Article I, Section 8 also states that Congress will provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining those militias. The States will appoint the officers and train those militias, according to the discipline that Congress sets forth.

The Second Amendment sounds more like the establishment of the National Guard, however, the Federalist Papers give a much more detailed reason for the Amendment. It's like the other answerer said; to protect ourselves from the Federal government.

Answer 4

It is funny, since the Founding Fathers were really afraid that if there was a standing army, it would turn on the people. That is why they put it under secular civilian authority. The wanted the state militias to be able and ready to fight our own army if it (with or without political support) tried to remake the democratic republic they were creating.

***********************************

chainsaw -

"Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron, moron.

Are you aware that there is no mention of, or reference to, God, Jesus, or Christianity anywhere in the Constitution?

And that the 1797 US Congress unanimously passed this statement:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

Answer 5

The problem with liberals is they are not literal intrepreters of the Constitution. This explains it all. Remember this when you hear the Constitution is a living document. This means that a liberal can legislate from the bench.

Maybe I should write a book because I can translate liberal into rational???????

Answer 6

I don't know how I have owned guns for 50 years, my dad had guns before that. His father give him his first gun so I would assume that my ancestor had guns and brought them with them on the boat. How is anybody going to take my gun away from me with that much presidant, I have never done anything illegal with my gun. I think that pig won't fit in the washer.

edit: I am a liberal.

Answer 7

I didn't read it but why sweat the small stuff? The best answer is at the whim of the asker...or passersby looking for points by voting. They mean nothing. There's no panel of judges.

Answer 8

that is the way it goes on yahoo answers we asked a ? then we pick the answer we like the best no matter if it is a good one or not that is the way the ball bounces I guess sometime it does not make any sense but that is the way it goes.

Answer 9

I agree, laughable.

Answer 10

beats me!