First of all, I am not an NRA spokesperson or anything like that, and I'm not looking for ranting and raving here. I just want to know how gun control laws are reconciled with the 2nd Amendment, which is as follows:
"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."
That wording is pretty clear to me, and I must say that I agree with it. So how have judges justified the Constitutionality of gun control laws?
2007-03-08 06:51:42 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Not that I buy it, but an argument has been that the 2nd Amendment really refers to states establishing a national guard.
Judges don't believe they have to justify their position. They believe they can interpret the laws to conform to their idea of what is best for the people.
2007-03-08 07:03:30 · answer #1 · answered by ML 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is not that the 2nd Amendment is not clear, or that most people do not agree with it. The problem is, that the people who are actually taking up arms are not following the 2nd Amendment. There is so much gang violence in the world today that having the 2nd Amendment allowing people to own guns is causing more and more lives to be taken.
The reason the goverment is justifying the Constitutionality of gun control laws is to try and keep it safe for the innocent people who do actually follow the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, but a majority of the persons in the U.S. today who own guns do not have certificates, or licenses saying that their allowed to do so and their the ones screwing it up for everyone else.
2007-03-08 06:57:59 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Well, the most important thing to remember is that the 2nd Amendment only applies to FEDERAL gun laws, not state regulation. Because it 2nd Amendment was never incorporated against the states, it doesn't affect state regulations.
As far as federal gun laws, most deal with interstate commerce or possession of firearms on federal property. And those are within the scope of laws that Congress is allowed to pass. And in those cases, the laws are subject to strict limitations, which is why many federal gun laws have been overturned.
2007-03-08 08:31:27 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
One thing in life you had better remember is ( money and power corrupt even the best of people )
So when you say you don't have to worry about your Gov. you had better think twice on that one.
I would bet in the 30's and 40's allot of people in Germany felt they had nothing to worry about from their Gov. also
funny how things work out. Look around the world today many countries with unarmed citizens are being killed every day and many by thier Gov.
2007-03-08 07:39:04 · answer #4 · answered by ULTRA150 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There weren't any assault rifles around when the 2nd amendment was established. I imagine this is why gun control laws were established. The 2nd amendment was included in the constitution because many citizens were worried about government control, and wanted the right to defend themselves at all costs. As the previous poster indicated, a majority of these weapons are not being used for self defense (gang wars) and I think we can all agree that we don't need weapons to defend ourselves from the government.
2007-03-08 07:00:36 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Gomaneyes- fairly the choice. in u . s . of america the persons for greater gun administration are those that use emotion and function little data to back it up. evaluating us to different countries does not something, as we are a completely seperat u . s . with diverse regulations, demographics, financial device, etc. each and all the data help the reality that greater weapons=much less crime.
2016-10-17 21:32:01 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only gun control that I agree with is not to permitt felons have guns and those that suffer from mental dis-orders. Chidren and those that need a hand gun "right this minute, called a cooling off period. Other than that, I don't agree with gun control.
2007-03-08 07:05:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Laws against owning guns and laws against convicts owning guns and laws agains what type of guns can be sold are all very different things.
There are laws that restrict which public places you can carry a gun. There are laws that restrict convicts from owning guns. There are laws that restrict certain assault rifles from being sold.
But there are NO laws that prevent a law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun and taking it home.
2007-03-08 07:07:04 · answer #8 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Gun control laws are all doomed to failure.
They all claim to be attempting to protect the citizenry by keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them to do harm to others.
They force gun owners to register their guns, and require waiting periods, and try to limit the type and number of guns that people keep.
Meanwhile, if a criminal wants a gun - they go get one, and no amount of laws will stop that from happening.
2007-03-08 06:55:32 · answer #9 · answered by joemammysbigguns 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
pretty lame arguments-"cop killer bullets able to penetrate body armor"-"it can take down a plane"-"who really NEEDS a gun that holds so many rounds?"
my favorite is when these do-gooders call a magazine a "clip"
p.s.
when the 2nd amendment was written, flintlocks were "assault rifles".
2007-03-08 07:05:46 · answer #10 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋