Why are there gun control laws in spite of Amendment 2?

Question

I'm doing hw.......

Answer 1

"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."

Several parts of the Second Amendment can be interpreted in different ways. The first clause reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Does that mean that the right to bear arms is only protected for members of a well regulated militia? If so, then the government is perfectly capable of restricting independent citizen's right to bear arms.

But on the other hand, the second clause states categorically "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Looked at as an independent statement, no regulation should be possible.

Furthermore, the question of what the authors of the Constitution intended to be allowed by the Second Amendment is often brought up by gun control advocates. They say that the Founders intended the amendment to promote self defense, while an assault rifle is not required for self defense.

The conflict between interpretations has allowed various gun control laws to be passed.

Answer 2

Some observations:
We don’t have the Constitutional right to not be scared, or to be heard, or to be celebrated.

We should be considered responsible until proven otherwise.

When the amendments were written, your free speech was from a soap box, no mic, no internet, no TV, no nudity or profanity, only movable type presses and quill pens.

We already have thousands of gun laws. The solution is not more laws, its enforcement of more of the laws we now have.

You have not lost any right under Bush, despite all the liberal lies. You have lost rights to Kerry and Sorros and the ACLU and their scumbag lawyers.

What gives the government to regulate what kind of car I drive or which words I speak or what I eat or what kind of gun I have the right to own?

Constitutional interpretation has been the source of numerous bad laws. The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was bastardized into the right to kill your baby.
The right to own arms (separated from the militia part by a comma) is a RIGHT of the PEOPLE, as are the fifty some other times in the Constitution the term RIGHT is used. The RIGHT is not used as a mandate or obligation or duty assigned to a government entity.

Answer 3

Well, in case you're unaware, the constitution, for the most part, has pretty much been invalidated by Congress, and President Bush. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security Bill, and most recently, the Military Commissions Act, among others, have pretty well made the constitution of very little effect. It's probably just a matter of time before martial law is declared, and the government seizes all guns anyway.

Answer 4

What would happen if there were not any control at all? You can already see the negative influence this amendment is giving to this country. A country that has a serious problem with guns should definitely have some laws to control gun use. Which it doesn't even really have...

Answer 5

Probably because there werent flame-throwers, machine guns, and grenade launchers when it was written. The purpose of the 2nd, is to ensure that people are able to defend themselves in the event of a tyrannical govt. I guess the supreme court thinks we can do that with conventional firearms.

Answer 6

Because people have abused the right to bear arms. Why should people who cant act responsibly with a gun be allowed to own one?

Answer 7

Uncle Sam

Answer 8

because although there is the 2nd amendment, YOUR freedom to carry a gun STOPS when another persons freedom to live life in the pursuit of happiness(not being scared of a gun) starts.

in others words, two freedoms collide. its like having freedom of speech but you cant go around yelling crap out in public places cause not everyone wants to hear that.