Do US citizens have right to own guns?

Question

What is the reasoning for this if this is true? Why is the right to own guns important and where is this right written? What is it for?

Answer 1

In every dictatorship the government did one thing first before it seized total absolute power over it's people, it took away their right to protect themselves, that way when the solders of the newly formed dictatorship came marching through the cities to collect what the government wanted from its people, be it property, daughters, money or land, the fear of being shot at was much less, so when our founding fathers in the U.S. sat down to write out what rights the people had they agreed that the two most important things were Freedom to speak their minds and the freedom to protect themselves and their property. thus our first amendment to the constitution is Free speech and the second is the right to keep and bare arms. It is a way of ensuring that the government doesn't run ramrod over the people.

Answer 2

This is a very unique and touchy subject.

The 2nd Amendment does say that the right to "keep and bear arms will not be infringed". It also mentions a well-organized militia.

The US Code, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13 deals with the definition of a miltia. The US CODE defines miltia as:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The whole "well-regulated" clause makes a strong arguement for an individual, non-military citizen not having the right to own a firearm.

However, if you look at a few court cases, the opposite seems true:

In US vs Miller (US Supreme Court, 1939), the opinion states that when the Bill of Rights were written, the following applied to a militia:

"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

So a militia is expected to supply its own arms. However, Miller also tells us in the end that certain weapons are not protected as also stated in the opinion: "'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. "

Then if you fast forward a number of years to US vs. Emerson (5th District Court, 1999), the opinion states: "The structure of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual right, rather than a collective one. " While previous court cases showed the 2nd Amendment as a collective right rather than an individual right, Emerson explicitly states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. To the best of my knowledge, the Emerson has not yet been overturned. The US vs. Emerson case is an excellent opinion to read for both gun control and gun owners alike!

Do Americans have the right to own guns? Only time will tell. The only Supreme Court case (Miller) that has dealt with the issue dealt with the constitutionality of a sawed off shotgun, not the persons right to bear arms.

Why would a country give people the right to have firearms? It protects the people from government, both foreign and domestic. No government wants to take on an armed population of a country because they will lose. A person fighting for their home is much more powerful than a hired soldier. An armies greatest technologies can be rendered worthless if their supplies are cut off. How useful are tanks and planes without fuel? How good are soldiers without food? The citizens of the country control the vital resources. Even if the government or military takes over such vital resources, they will need manpower to harvest the resources, manpower that is valuable in a civil war or if invading a land far from home.

Answer 3

Second Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

The title to the Amendments gives the militia the right to bear arms. Then in the Amendment itself it defines who the Militia is.
The Militia is every able-bodied Male eighteen years of age and older.
The reasoning behind it was actually two fold. First was where the government would have an army of citizen soldiers at the ready in case of war.
The second reasoning was in the citizens being able to protect themselves from the government itself and to prevent the government leaders or military from seizing power and setting up a dictatorship or monarchy. Namely to insure the government did not try to take the citizen's rights from them by force.

And in that context it was also a way for the citizen to defend himself against criminals/ And if you have been keeping up with the news any at all that is the last thing the Brotherhood of crooks & Cops Union wants. It is also the last thing Lawyers want. Lawyers make their living defending crooks. And without crooks Cops are out of a job.

Answer 4

Bill of Rights, part of our Constitution, in the Second Amendment.

I'll assume you can parse the sentence. There is one grammatical clause. In a sentence, the clause is the most important part. Words that are not part of any clause are effectively lower in importance. So what is that clause?

Subject:
(The) right

Whose right?
of the people

Which right?
to keep and bear arms

What about that right?
shall not be infringed.

The prefatory phrase explains why this right exists. Free states have properly functioning (the period definition of "well-regulated") militias. It is easier to have a properly functioning militia if all the potential members know how to use arms.

Answer 5

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."

The right of the people to bear arms is necessary to defense of the home, the community and the country. If citizens can not arm themselves, then the power shifts in the world and in government would endanger us all. This was the thinking of our forefathers in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Answer 6

Yes, it is in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and has survived US Supreme court challenges! Some weapons are banned, like machine guns and automatic rifles.

It was basically to have a last resort if we were attacked and ran out of military! In my state, our Constitution says this:

"June 2, 1784

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

This should be in the US Constitution as well! Heaven knows we need it as ours is so corrupt, perverted and represents a private class: the rich!

Answer 7

2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarentees a person the right to bare arms. Without this right our government would then rid us of all the other rights, this would include right to religion, speech or maybe the use of computers. Nazi's found it a quick solution to get rid of gun ownership then get rid of those people that could not fight back because they hated the Nazi party political stance. In modern America, the lose of legal ownership would not rid the streets of guns, it would rid the streets of law abiding citizens. Look at the multitude of countries who banned guns in recent history and you see explosions in crime rates.

Answer 8

No, Obama is NOT against any citizens owning any guns. The people who keep telling you that are liars who keep lying to you. No one is advocating all guns be taken away from everyone. What SANE people realize is that it's wrong and harmful to allow anyone to get their hands on rapid-fire weaponry and long ammo clips. Actually, most NRA members support more control over gun ownership - such as requiring background checks and closing the gun show loophole, and banning assault weapons. Vastly more lives are LOST because assault weapons are easily available to anyone, than any lives saved. If a home has a gun, people who live there are FOUR TIMES MORE likely to die of gun-shot than those who live in homes with no guns. The way to prevent most rapid-fire guns from being in the hands of thugs and crazy people and kids, is to not make them easily available to anyone. That's how. If criminals don't have rapid-fire weaponry, we would be SAFER, not LESS safe. If rapid-fire weaponry wasn't sold to anyone who shows up at gun shows, there would be fewer mass murderers with them. ?????? No one said media should be suppressed. They guy who made that video was on probation; the terms included HIS not being allowed to upload things to the net. As everyone who has any brain knows, it is WRONG to incite violence. No, Obama has support from more citizens than those who disapprove of him. That's why we re-elected him, after having had him as president for the first term. No one cares what some moron thinks -- YOU believe any idiotic thing you want. No one who has any brain thinks that because some sub-human, hate-mongering moron who loves mass-murder thinks something, that it's TRUE. Right. When a person owns rapid-fire weaponry, it's possible for someone else to take them and use them to murder lots of children. Us HUMANS think that's a BAD thing. You, obviously, want to see MORE small children murdered.

Answer 9

Yes, all states allow some form of gun ownership. Some states have few gun laws like VT others have lots like CA. The reasoning is that people want to be able to protect themselfs. It isn't nessisarly important in fact it is dangerous. It is written is state constitutions. And there are both federal and state laws and regualations on it. what is what for? I think the only reason people should own guns is to protect them from the gov.

Answer 10

The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms.' If it had, there would have been explicit wording such as "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." .. OK being facetious... It is stating that the "right" pre existed the Constitution and that the government can not infringe on the pre existing right of self defense that has existed from the beginning of mankind.