The 2nd amendment reads;
"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."
Should we be allowed to stockpile bomb making material? Blasting caps? Nitrogen fertilizer in mass quantities? Nuclear devices? Dirty bombs? Infectious biological agents? Neurotoxins? Rocket launchers?
If my neighbor is a nuclear physicist doesn't the second amendment allow him to set up a missile launch pad with nuclear devices on board?
Would anyone think the second amendment applies to any of these? I hope not, but I hope you can see my point that they are not legal because they are a significant threat to the health and safety of all citizens. They are also inanimate objects (like automatic assault weapons). The sole purpose for owning an assault weapon is for killing. Their proliferation is a public safety threat - numerous studies comparing countries with and without them has shown it. Response?
2006-10-09 10:39:20 · 9 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
2006-10-09 10:48:10 · answer #1 · answered by notme 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In all constitutional studies, you must take consideration of the intent. Most of the ten original amendments were opposed by many, for the simple fact they are rights of the people and need not be set down on paper.
Even the courts nowadays read more into these first tne than were ever envisioned, let alone intended. The second amendment takes care of two things only:
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."
2006-10-09 17:47:57 · answer #2 · answered by eferrell01 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know why the fact that they are inanimate objects has anything to do with anything. Guns, left to their own devices don't kill anyone. People do. Because I have a so-called assault rifle (by the way, would someone please define assault rifle?) doesn't mean that I am a criminal. I didn't hurt or attempt to hurt or assault anyone with it. It is my right as a citizen to own a gun (arm) to protect myself and my family against criminals and a tyrannical government (should it come to that). If the everyday citizen does not have a gun he or she becomes a target for all those criminals who have one after the gun restriction laws are passed. Will the police be there to protect you at all times? No. I'm really tired of all the people out there who like the Bill of Rights, but just the ones they agree with. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2006-10-09 17:58:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They've already banned all sorts of assault type weapons. You bleedin' heart types won't be happy until all the honest people are disarmed so they can't violate the rights of the criminals who are robbing them or raping their wives. When was the last time the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment? They're so fond of the first they don't have time for the second.
2006-10-09 17:46:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There ARE laws that were passed that provide the necessary limitations of these firearms. The NRA and its supporters are rightfully against MORE restrictions on the amendment. You can forget about regulating fertilizers.The other ridiculous proposals you have here are not noteworthy.
2006-10-09 18:17:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our forefathers had enough wisdom to see, that their arms gave victory to them, from an oppressive king...
Being victims themselves of tyranny, they understood this right more so than us...
They wanted to ensure their children didn't suffer the same fate...
This government can already take your land for private use.....What else are we willing to surrender....
2006-10-09 17:55:26 · answer #6 · answered by Madmax 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. A handgun for pretection in your home is one thing, but an assault weapon, that is a bit much.
2006-10-09 17:42:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 2nd admendment is outdated.
The forefathers could never fathom the terrible weapons that would be created in the future.
People don't need automatic weapons, nuke technology, etc.
2006-10-09 17:42:50 · answer #8 · answered by Villain 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You see that is what is wrong with America today- liberal interpretation of the law and twisting it to say what they the libs want it to say. Just like flag burning is protected speech? still haven't figured that one out yet BTW i love the way you libs like to shred the constitution just to make your point LMAO
2006-10-09 17:43:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋