Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
2006-11-13 15:23:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
Not directly! It simply allows for the establishment of militias. In the early history of our country these militias were usually rural farmers and inhabitants of wilderness areas. Having a gun was as sensible then as having a knife was. It was a survival tool that was a required part of any man's equipment such as a horse and a saddle. That is why horse stealing was a hanging offense, because without a horse a man was likely to die in the wilderness. These men came in from the farms and wilderness areas and collected in mutual defense of their homes and territories from invasions of foriegn armies and savage natives who were desparately trying to defend their own homes in the manner they had been brought up to do by their culture. Now that we have stolen all the good Indian lands, and the horse is no longer a neccessity, we have stopped carrying guns as real survival tools, because when we have guns in our homes there is a 46:1 chance that the weapon will be used against us as opposed to saving our skins. We no longer hang horse thieves, and have never hung car theives, so why should every one keep a gun in the house any more. In England with a population of 60.5 million crammed into an area slightly smaller then Oregon had 53 gun deaths in a recent year. In Japan with a population of 127 million in a country about the size of California had even less gun deaths. These are highly sophisticated countries with systems comparable, if not equal, to our own. Canada is another example as well. (They are much worse rapers then we are though.) yet we had 23,000+ gun deaths in a recent year with our current population at 300,000,000 in October of this year it seems that such a wide open country should never reveal a death rate as high as ours. Second ammendment or not, something just does not work out well here.
2006-11-14 00:22:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by arnp4u 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes.
Actually, The second amendment states the following:
Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
So, It is Legal to poses a fire arm with some restrictions.....No criminal record...A pistol permit....a Hunting License.
Hope this helps...I have included a Link with additional information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Thanks, Billy
2006-11-13 23:35:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mav 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Second Amendment does not do or give anything. It is a set of words which have to be interpretted by people. The prevailing interpretation is that the Amendment does not guarantee a right to possess firearms. Why isn't the interpretation broader than that? Probably because of the "preamble" in the Amendment, referring to the "well-regulated militia."
2006-11-13 23:31:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, the Second Amendment does not do that.
The Constitution is the document which creates the federal government. It does not create the people, nor does it create or limit the rights of people.
The Second Amendment merely states in recognition that the people have this right, and instructs the federal government not to attempt to limit this right. It gives nothing (see Declaration of Independence).
The right to bear arms is the right to go about openly armed (see the reasoning in Dredd Scott V. Sandford). It is none of the government's business what armaments or why.
2006-11-13 23:27:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by open4one 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The second ammendment however only applies to the federal government.....state and local governments can restrict ownership of firearms, or ban them completely (San Francisco)
2006-11-13 23:50:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Riley 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
let?
It prohibits the Government from banning individual ownership and the right to carry them.
It's the last line of defense against an oppressive Government.
2006-11-13 23:30:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
THE SECOND AMENDMENT GIVES THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, AND OUR FOREFATHERS KNEW WHY AS THEY KNEW THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE THE PEOPLES WORST ENEMY, AND WITH OUT GUNS THE OTHER AMENDMENTS ARE WORTHLESS,OUR FOREFATHERS WANTED THE GOV, TO FEAR THE PEOPLE, BUT, DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE WHO IS NOT AFRAID OF OUR GOVERNMENT?? ANY ONE WHO SAYS HE IS NOT AFRAID OF OUR GOVERNMENT IS EITHER STUPID, LYING, OR CRAZY, AS THEY CAN DO ANY THING THEY WANT TO ANY ONE AND WITH IMPUNITY
2006-11-13 23:32:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by jim ex marine offi, 3
·
0⤊
0⤋