English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How will the 2nd ammendment be bypassed?
Did the founders only mean for those in the army to have guns or did they want all citizens to be armed?
Were these guns meant to be used for self protection against criminal, against foreign invasion and to keep the government from going to far? Or was it meant just for hunting? If we loose are guns who will protect our homes from criminal, foreign governments and our own government?

2006-12-15 07:37:36 · 22 answers · asked by dem_dogs 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

22 answers

all the other amendments meant "all the citizens" when it said "the people".

why on earth do you want to ban guns? guns save lives by arming the would be victims of violent crimes.

the purpose behind the 2nd amendment was to be an insurance policy for the rest of the constitution. should the authorities fail to protect the individual citizens, from say an invading army (lets say the Briitish at that time), the government could rely on an armed population to raise up minutemen to defend their homes and land from subjugation (and an end to all the other rights in the constitution). the guns they had were brown bess's, single shot muskets on par with the british infantry. in order for this insurance policy to remain effective, the weapons of the citizenry must be on par with modern enemy infantry, if the minutemen of today are to succeed should the authorities (police, army) fail.

minutemen, armed citizens with weapons on par with modern enemy infantry, helped to win the revolution, the founding fathers saw this, and made sure it was one of the first amendments.

Additionally, the supreme court ruled in United States v. Miller, that...

"[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view." The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it consisted of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."



So, citizens, must supply their OWN Weapons, that are in common usage, by modern military's for the defense of the nation

2006-12-15 07:56:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Realistically, outlawing guns would require a Constitutional amendment and is politically out of the question.

The founders wanted citizens to be armed. Armed citizens won the Revolution. There were also founders who felt that a well armed citizenry could keep the government from taking away their rights.

On the other hand, a "well regulated militia" would seem to allow and, in fact, demand such things as mandatory gun registration and training.

2006-12-15 07:44:24 · answer #2 · answered by Dave P 7 · 2 0

SOME guns should be outlawed.

It never says in the language that ALL arms must be availible to the populace.

If precedence has been set to forbid people to own certain weapons... anything can be added to that list.


That being said... rifles and shotguns and other hunting tools are completely fine.

You will never convince me that anyone has a reason to own a handgun.


And how does responsible gun ownership actually prevent a home breakin at gunpoint? Guess what, the criminals will still rob you... and they will probably steal your gun that you didn't have time to get... now they have two guns. We have the right to own guns here, and people are still killed and raped everyday.

Way to go.


And if we stop making handguns, they become harder to get. Bottom line. Why do other nations with tougher gun control have fewer murders per capita?

2006-12-15 07:52:17 · answer #3 · answered by RobotoMR 2 · 0 2

The Declaration of Independence states: "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
This is clearly the reason for the 2nd Amendment. After all, without guns, how could the people abolish a tyrannical government? Only with our guns could we fight Brittain and win our freedom.

The 2nd Amendment is by far the most important of all amendments. It gives us the ability to protect all the rest of our rights.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to protect us FROM government. Government should not be protected from the people, it should fear the people. If the government has all the guns, and the people have none, then the people will fear the government. And that is the very definition of tyranny.

2006-12-15 08:18:18 · answer #4 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 2 0

To answer your questions in order.

1 - No.
2 - It won't be
3 - All citizens, by their own choice
4 - Probably both
5 - Good question

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. I don't own a gun, nor do I want to. But, responsible people who want them should be allowed to do so.

2006-12-15 08:13:47 · answer #5 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0 0

If guns are outlawed, then only criminals and the govt (also criminals) will have them, and you won't be able to leave your home. Australia had done this, and people would get home invasions where criminals would tie them up, rob them rape them and everything, at GUNPOINT. So, it's a bad idea.

ALSO, the founders and writers of the constitution were smarter than these so called politicians we have, and wrote the constitution BECAUSE of them.

2006-12-15 07:45:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Never.
Outlawing guns will not eliminate the illegal guns. Every citizen has the right to own weapons, for all the above-mentioned reasons.

2006-12-15 13:40:58 · answer #7 · answered by Schona 6 · 3 0

I say NO! But it is ironic that the same group of morons that cry for Constitutional amendments banning Flag burning, gay marriage, loosening restrictions on separation of church and state cry the loudest about " taking away their right to own guns". Leave the frigging Constitution alone for Christ's sake, it's worked well for over 200 years.

2006-12-15 08:40:37 · answer #8 · answered by Chuck P 3 · 3 0

For me, guns are tools.
I live in the deep country (sorta), I have problems with wild animals and also occasional dogs.

Heh... one time I was cutting some trees for firewood in my back yard. Some idiot drives along the dirt path behind my property and gets out of his truck and sicks his dog on me. I was lucky, my chainsaw started right up on the first pull....

generally, I need a pistol for snakes, foxes, dogs and rabid raccons. the real problem comes when the black bears stop by looking for a snack... they can tear a door off a house.

tom

2006-12-15 07:49:22 · answer #9 · answered by a1tommyL 5 · 2 0

I'm not exactly a fan of guns, don't own one, never even shot one.

But as long as you're not a criminal or insane, I've got no problem with gun ownership.

2006-12-15 07:43:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers