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

6 answers

Read the Federalist Papers. You will conclude it does. The Founders intended that we never have a standing army so private citizens were to keep and maintain military style weaponry if ever needed

2007-01-31 16:45:01 · answer #1 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 1 0

Yes. The Second Amendment states: "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." Note the word 'infringed'. The dictionary defines infringe as,

Infringe –verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

Therefore any law that restricts LAW-ABIDING citizens from owning any type of firearm is illegal. Yet many states deny access to "bad" and "scary" guns, completely ignoring the Constitution. It's amazing how many Americans protest and fight to the bone for their 1st Amendment rights and 4th-9th (which are all about court and legal matters) yet completely disregard the 2nd Amendment which is violated literally everyday.

And to those who say the Second Amendment is exclusively for Militias, you are wrong. It does protect citizen's rights to form militias AND individual firearm rights. The bill of rights is about individuals not states. States do not have the right to Free Speech, Free Religion and Cruel and Unusual Punishment, the individual does.

2007-01-31 15:41:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

not fullyyt. the 2d and 9th amendments are what enable US voters to personal guns. quite, the 2d change in hardship-free words enables guns to be owned to style an useful military, yet on account that it truly is not needed anymore, it really is quite the 9th change that permits guns to be owned, by using the indisputable fact that is a rule for studying the invoice of rights and structure and equates to "Any proper granted to a citizen via the structure can not be taken away via act of authorities." regardless of the indisputable fact that different guidelines already reduce gun administration. Convicted felons can not personal a gun, nor can persons less than the legal age, nor can persons with severe psychological ailment. computerized firearms at the instantaneous are not approved for use or possession of the overall public, and particular severe potential guns are subject to stricter gun administration law. contained in the united kingdom, before the close to finish ban on handguns, the guidelines were in some techniques a lot stricter. everybody ought to practice to have a firearms license, regardless of the indisputable fact that the regulation enables the police to run huge historic past assessments on the owner previous to issuing the allow and there are very sturdy guidelines on locking the guns away, not save it loaded, etc. that each and each man or woman ended after the Dunblane college capturing, which brought on changes to limit all handguns. In result, the prevalent public grow to be given an decision to grant a stunning good reason they should be allowed to save handguns and they couldn't imagine of one. Shotguns are nonetheless approved, subject to the above guidelines, for searching.

2016-12-03 07:18:47 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The Bill of Rights just says that the citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms because the country needs to maintain a militia (army). Judges can interpret that however they want to and in compliance with previous judges' verdicts or "common law".

2007-01-31 10:38:20 · answer #4 · answered by yo_ghetto_sista 1 · 0 1

The right to bear arms was originally necessary to aid in national defense. It is important to remember that the US had no standing army ( that is, no permanent military force like the military of today) until the Civil War. Prior to that, the states had militias of common people who would each bring his own personal weapon to the battlefield. Moreover, the Bill of Rights says that we have the right to keep and bear arms, but it does not state that we have the right to hold *all types* of weapons. You are allowed to own a hunting rifle, but not a nuclear missile. The Supreme Court and state courts each have the power to regulate not only the types of weapons that you own but also how you can obtain those weapons (registration, waiting period, etc.).

2007-01-31 10:52:09 · answer #5 · answered by Matthew 2 · 0 1

You will get arguements to the contrary from the NRA, but the Fourth Amendment was about the right to form militias to defend their local areas rather than insuring that any nutcase had the right to have a gun even if it were dangerous for him/her to have one.

2007-01-31 10:41:38 · answer #6 · answered by Thunderman9 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers