The violence isn't too much?
2006-12-20 06:04:07 · 20 answers · asked by Paul Pierre 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The Second Amendment has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an individual right (although there is at least one or two justices on the Court now who would re-examine those holdings). The Amendment begins "A well-regulated militia..." The Court has interpreted that as a sign that "militias" or "states" may have the right to keep and bear arms, but not individuals.
(I'm sure your question will bring out the inevitable "Defense against government tyranny" argument, or the "The first thing Hitler did was institute gun control" argument, but these are largely red herrings in today's society. I mean, if the military needed to quash a rebellion stirring among the people, it would have many, many more weapons at its disposal than just a 9mm handgun... )
Interesting comment above:
In England, citizens are not permitted to own guns, Are they a peaceful society? "
YES. The murder rate is much lower, and certainly rates of gun violence are much lower in other nations such as the UK, France, and Canada (see, Bowling for Columbine, Moore's best work.)
2006-12-20 06:09:01 · answer #1 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Well first, where do you get the notion that America is a peaceful society. We have a pretty bloody history.
Second, I have no idea where all these people got this idea that if we made guns illegal criminals would suddenly over run us all going on shooting frenzy. Most western nations make guns illegal but few have the level of gun deaths as the US.
Thrid, the 2nd Amendment is my favorite amendment to debate. Because people really have no idea what it is about.
"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."
A well regulated militia, is in the first line. You really have to respect the idea of what the founders were saying. They had just fought a war and the only thing that saved them from the british tyranny were the barrels of their guns. I personally find that part of the amendment quite amazing, and I think that it is sad that it is over looked.
But the reason people have guns today have nothing to do with protection from our government or any other government. It is navie to think that if the government turned on us, we could fight off the army, navy, marine corpand air force with the pea shooters that congress let us use. And it is navie to think that if the army, navy, marine corp and air force all lost to a forgian government we would be able to stop them with the pea shooters we have.
It is a beautiful Amendment for the history it represents, but it is highly outdated in todays world.
2006-12-20 06:51:29 · answer #2 · answered by The Teacher 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is still good for a peaceful society.
The reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure that the Government never became so powerful that the people couldn't overthrow it. Obviously they set up the democracy so that it wouldn't come to a bloody revolution, but they left that safety catch in there just in case.
A question a professor asked me years ago was, "Ask yourself which is more frightening, when the police can outgun the populace or when the populace can outgun the police?"
For me, the answer is that it's scarier when the police can outgun the populace. Government should always be mindful of what the extreme consequence is for abuse of power. The right to bear arms for the common people is an invaluable reminder of that extreme consequence.
2006-12-20 06:05:35 · answer #3 · answered by JSpielfogel 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Our Second Amendment rights were created to protect us, and the NRA has a lot to say about it. When it comes to protection, every person has the right to save their lives, homes, and lives of others, as long as it is used as equal or lesser force. Unfortunately, the Second Amendment has also been taken too far, with illegal weaponry being transferred throughout the States. Originally, it was the best thing for our country, but I believe it may eventually get out of hand... When weaponry turns to chemicals and new, innovative weapons start being sold on the black markets of America, we need to put certain restrictions on that pesky Second Amendment. However, right now, I believe we are in Terrorist Alert Orange, meaning that we don't know when, who or where it will take place, but sometime, somewhere in America, something bad is going to happen. Or, you can take it very literally and realize that the constructors of the Constitution were talking about the arms of native bears in America, letting you have the right to kill a bear and hang its arms on your walls...
2006-12-20 06:08:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
People always conveniently forget the FULL context of the second amendment. It does not simply grant the right "to keep and bear Arms." It says specifically, "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. "
I added the capitalization to the part in question. We have "well regulated militia" in the armed forces and police departments. There is NOTHING in the second amendment that refers to average citizens.
2006-12-20 06:17:14 · answer #5 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"2d change; "keep" also skill "bear"?" NO. If it did the Founders does no longer repeat themselves. The 'out of date' guidelines favor cleansing up, yet this in many cases calls for legislative action to commence. it is regulation - not in any respect assume some thing.
2016-11-27 23:17:13 · answer #6 · answered by money 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If guns and amunition were banned who do you think would have guns? The criminals. The majority of the time someone kills someone with a gun it wasn't obtained legally. So yes I do believe it is good for a peaceful society.
2006-12-20 06:07:09 · answer #7 · answered by Keith 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is still good.
That right should NOT be taken away.
"Violence" happens with or without guns and the violence that happens with guns would still happen even if they were illegal.
Cocaine is against the law. Do people still get it and use it? YES.
If guns were against the law people would still get them and use them.
Anyway, I am willing to bet that the majority of guns used for violence are ILLEGAL ones anyway.
2006-12-20 06:07:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe it is more than acceptable and it should never be changed. think about it, there's more bylaws in the constitution and legal system to be able to keep O.J. out of jail but one that is direct and precise in it's original literature is under more suspicion. Go back to the old fact, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Also, since you ask this, I wanna (and am going to) ask, why is it that it's perfectly acceptable for kids to wear goth/anarchist and satanically strewn shirts and jewelry to school but the instant someone wears a WWJD shirt or bracelet all hell brakes loose?
But to answer your question about is it good for a peaceful society, yes, it is. but we don't live in a peaceful society, it's one that's filled with violence, racism, hatred and more than anything, politics. Taking my gun won't make me less dangerous, it'll prolly just piss people off more and make them resort to other methods.
2006-12-20 06:12:02 · answer #9 · answered by Royal R 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Owing a gun keeps the peace because when guns are banned, only the criminals have them. When law-abiding citizens own them, they can protect themselves.
This is another liberal program that does not work, but is championed because the intent is noble. But who really cares about results?
2006-12-20 06:07:18 · answer #10 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋