Would the framers of the constitution have included the second amendment.?

Question

If they had known in advance of such things as handguns, and automatic, or semi-automatic weapons?

I think not.

Okay. So does that also mean that people have the right to have explosives? Explosives are arms after all.

Should they be allowed to have nuclear arms - Or chemical weapons?

They are arms after all.

Does the second ammendment cover these as well?

Here's an idea. Let's make ALL weapons illegal except for the military and law enforcement. Sounds reasonable to me.

Answer 1

I agree w the previous response that our founders were very progressive forward thinking men. They may well have envisioned the evolution of weaponry at least conceptually.

And bombs, nuclear chemical or otherwise do not fall under any vision of arms an individual might be in possession of.

Likewise automatic & semiautomatic weapons.....we don't need more laws to govern possession of weapons.....we need enforcement of existing laws as they are written.

For the guys in Colorado to have their guns was illegal....making additional laws won't make it MORE illegal!!

I don't own a weapon, & never have. I feel blessed that I have never been in a situation where I thought, "Gee I wish I had a gun right now...!"

But I strongly support the RIGHT to own a gun, which entails many responsibilities......& any misdeed or accident occuring because of a gun owners carelessness is their responsibility the same as if they had pulled the trigger themselves.

Finally, I also believe a 7 day waiting period is not unreasonable before taking possession of a new weapon.....if you need to have the gun sooner than 7 days....perhaps you need to rethink WHY you need a gun that quickly!!

Answer 2

Yes, the Second Amendment was put in there so that the people could form their own militia. Much like we did back in the Revolutionary War. Our whole army was organized a civilian militia that fought back against what we deemed as an over oppresive tyranical government. A government is limited to what it can do. It has limited deligated authority. People on the other hand have a mulititude of inborn rights that the government cannot take away. However, the government can become too big or too powerful. Our founding fathers knew and feared the government would use its military to take control of the people. So, to prevent this they put in the Second Amendment. Insuring that the government could never take control of the people. Because in the end the people would be the army and could fight back against the government. Patrick Henery, " The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun".
Thomas Jefferson, " "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms".
Look at what happened in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, genocide. Did you ever stop to think what would have happened if the Jews were armed and been able to form a militia and fight back against the Nazis? Would there have even been a Holocaust if they were able to do that? By the way, the our militia had one of the best rifles of the day the Kentucky Long Rifle. The British Army didn't. So, yes the founding fathers would have put the Second Amendment in the Constitution, and expected the citizens to be well armed.
What it boils down to is free people are armed slaves are not.

Answer 3

The "militia" was the citizenry. They did not mean the National Guard, which did not exist then. The NG is a branch of the US military, which is part of the US government. The framers did not make an amendment meaning that the government had a right to have guns. That would have been silly.

"A well regulated militia" in 18th century English means a well-trained civilian populace was necessary to guard against a tyrannical domestic government.

Anyone who believes that the 2nd amendment is not meant to allow private civilians to own guns has either no knowledge of US history, or incomplete information. That is exactly why it was included, because the King had ordered the confiscation of civilian stockpiles.

Regarding heavy weapons like nukes, jet fighters, tanks, etc, they obviously were not referring to such yet unimagined firepower. It would seem that the majority of Americans would not want A-1 tanks for sale at the local dealership. It is silly hyperbole to infer that those of us who know (not believe) the purpose of the 2nd amendment want to people to own nukes.

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. Making them illegal will not make them go away. Last I checked, marijuana is illegal, but I'm sure you're well acquainted with that.

Answer 4

Yes. The Second Amendment and the First Amendment were debated about which one was more important. Freedom of speech won out because if there was no FoS, word could not get out that the militia was needed. The Second Amendment is OUR club that guarantees that all of our Rights cannot be usurped by an out of control govt. WE ARE the militia, not the National Guard. The Framers were NOT stupid people. They knew firsthand what oppression and an overbearing govt. could do. The Second Amendment guarantees the sanctity of our Rights and Liberties. They also knew that America was full of inventors and innovators and progress was unstoppable. Things would be improved, made more productive, more powerful machines and weapons, better living conditions, stronger construction materials and equipment, electrical power, transportation, etc. would all improve and get better. And they already knew that America was a shining beacon of freedom, liberty and justice. They were very intelligent people and we are damn lucky to be Americans and had such straight thinking people to help start this nation.

Answer 5

The Founders wanted to make sure that the American people were ready for any emergency. That included the right and necessity for them to own MILITARY grade weapons. What they envisioned would be the modern equivalent of Neighborhood Watch with M-16's. Although I don't think the Founders intended every farmer to posses an artillery piece, a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment would suggest that all manner of sundry nastiness is within an American citizen's right to own.

When Congress first outlawed sawed - off shotguns, there was, of course, a Second Amendment case argued before the Supreme Court. The court dismissed those arguments because "a sawed - off shotgun has no military value"

I think the NRA should shift their "hunting rifle" arguments to the 9th Amendment instead of the 2nd.

Answer 6

I really wish the Founders had written the 2nd Amendment more clearly and less loftily. If you look at the structure, it gives a justification for the right, and then states the right itself. The right is that the people can keep and bear arms. The purpose is so they can serve in militias, necessary to the Security of a free state. But the 2nd clearly states "the right of the people." That means it's an individual right.

Answer 7

Well, they weren't clairvoiant, so what does it matter. And I would have to say yes, since most of the people in those days actually had some type of weapon for self defense or for gathering food.
Just what time frame do you think they lived in? They didn't carry clubs around. The first gun was invented around the year 1230 or so. so that would lead me to believe that guns were very prevelant in the 1700's

Answer 8

Well, they had handguns then--just not as efficient ones.

But yes, they would have. But what has been lost in the depate is that the 2nd says clearly, "A WELL REULATED militia being necessary to the common defense, the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

There is not hing in the Constitution to prohibit regulation and oversight of gun ownership--quite the opposite. So I suspect the Framers would have found themselves aat odds with the NRA! :)

Answer 9

Those who wrote the constitution did not at first write them. There were many who believed there was too much power given to the federal government. In order to to get the different states to ratify, an accommodation had to be made. The first ten amendments was the accommodation to the states in order to get them to sign.

Answer 10

Who cares? At least you have a Bill of Rights, unlike Kangaroo country!