2nd amendment under attack?

Question

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment is so that citizens have guns and are thus able to defend themselvs against a tyranical government. This was the purpose of the founding fathers and the framers of the constitution. However it seems that with each passing year, there are more and more gun restrictions. Think about this if you will in another more personal way. We know that there are rapists and murderers out there. So what is a women to do when she is confronted with a man who wants to do her harm? If she has no gun then she is pretty much defenceless. I on the other hand am a man; therefore I am fully capeable of physically defending myself. But what if the man wants to rob me. With out a gun, I am powerless to stop it. The police can not protect us at all times and by taking away our rights to carry guns we become more like subjects than citizens.

Answer 1

The 2nd ammendment says that the states have a right to maintain a well regulated militia as a necessity for their own security. It proceeds to grant the people the right to keep and bear arms in support of this necessity. To say that the necessity no longer exists is to defy the constitution. The law says that it does exist. Even if you can prove that there is no necessity for militias, the law will continue to disagree with you until you ammend the constitution.

What about infringing the right to bear arms? Is regulation/restriction an infringement? The courts have decided that such is not, so long as the right is accessible. I disagree, but my opinion (and yours) holds no legal weight. I would not advocate unrestricted access for all people to all "arms" (weapons), but being an explicit right of the constitution, this issue reveals the need to seriously consider amending the constitution to adjust for the shift in context/situation.

BTW, please don't speak of defensive or offensive weapons, because any sufficiently powerful defensive weapon may be used as an offensive weapon, and any offensive weapon may be employed as a defensive weapon, according to intent. (I don't know who to cite for the previous idea, but it wasn't originally mine)

Answer 2

The problem is the second ammendment is ambiguous. "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." The problem is what does 'a well regulated militia' mean. Does it mean an organized state or nation guard. Or, individuals owning firearms. Another thing is that an incredible amount of shootings never get solved. Just this weekend, 6-7-09, a little leaguer was shot at a baseball game. The bullet didn't penetrate his skull and he's going to be alright but the cops have no idea who shot the bullet. So if you take away the legal right to own all the guns, then anyone with one is automatically a criminal. That's the logic behind it. The problem is how to you keep guns away from criminals when citizens are allowed to own guns? If only the government have guns, then it's a police state. I have no solution, but I do admire the problem.

Answer 3

Two things to remember about the 2nd Amendment.

First, it applies only to FEDERAL gun regulation, not state gun control laws. It was never incorporated to apply against the states, unlike most of the other first eight amendments.

Second, read the whole Amendment: "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."

If you also look at all of the political commentary at the time, the entire purpose of the Amendment (when it was enacted) was to ensure that states could retain their militia, despite the wording in Article I of the Constitution. Historically, there was very little private gun ownership during colonial times, because guns were very rare and hard to maintain. So, an "original intent" argument doesn't cut it.

Neither does the "we must defend ourselves against criminals". You can defend yourself just as well with a baseball bat against anyone else who doesn't have a gun. And having a gun, statistically, makes it much more likely that you will get injured than if you didn't have one. Look at your own argument. You start off saying what you think the main purpose was, then give entirely unrelated examples about self-defense from criminals.

Let's be clear. I'm not advocating taking away the right for private individuals to own firearms. Even if it wasn't common practice during colonial times, it has become common practice over the past century.

But we require driving tests and drivers licenses before we let people get behind the wheel of a car. Since guns are so much more dangerous, should we have lesser safety standards for their use?

The 2nd Amendment isn't under attack, since almost all gun laws are state laws not covered by the 2nd Amendment. The problem isn't having too many laws, it's having badly written laws that don't address the real problems. It's time to think clearly, and rationally, and fix the laws.

Answer 4

Amendment II

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.

When read one could argue that the peoples right to bear arms as a well regulated militia was intended for the purpose of protecting our land from those who attempt to overthrow our government.

One has to remember that the "regulated militia" in the 1700's were the people who consisted of farmers and the like without our country having a formal military at the time.

With the current military services...you DO have a "well regulated" military to protect our country and as such...the "militia" is armed!

I'm neither pro or anti gun although I do believe that gun ownership is a serious issue. Too many weapons fall into the hands of thieves and thugs who in turn use those weapons to indiscriminately kill others.

We need to learn to control the misuse of these weapons and if it means we need to place stronger restrictions on ownership....then so be it.

The laws should NOT target the legitimate law abiding citizen but the criminal. Legitimate owners should be held more accountable for the security of their weapons!

JMHO...best wishes!

Answer 5

You're right. However I do believe that no single individual should have military grade weapons lol, but as far as basic firearms they should be protected. The right to protect yourself and your family is the same as the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Criminals in general look for lesser threatening targets. So if having to make a choice between raping a female with no protection and raping one with protection he will choose the non protected one of course.
The big arguement against having privately owned weapons is "you are more likely to hurt a loved one, than to be hurt".
However, where I live it is a daily occurence to have someone breaking in your home for various reasons. My neighbor was stalked for months, the police could not help her. Then one night home alone with her 2 toddler daughters she heard someone in her laundry room. She came around the corner with a shot gun and stopped an Unregistered Sexual Offender in her own home, when the Police couldn't do anything about it. Why do you think he was there, definitely not to deliver avon! What if she did not have that shot gun? Would have killed and raped her and her children? They were less than 3 yrs old! So take away guns, its much better to have 3 innocent victims than 1 not so innocent right??
Its funny how people accuse the govt. of trying to break the constitution, yet it is the opposers who are trying to take away our rights.

Answer 6

Jeff, I hate to disagree with you, because on most issues I'm all for civil rights, but I take issue with a few of your major propositions.
(1) The main purposes of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that a "well-regulated militia" has guns. For many years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is NOT an individual right, although there's at least one justice willing to reconsider that position. I believe that the framers' intent was not to allow all people to have unrestricted acces to guns, but only organizations, "militias," that could use and store guns responsibly.
(2) The "guns against tyrrany" argument is old. Seriously, if today's governments wanted to wipe us out, they have plenty of means to do so from 50,000 feet, and wouldn't be dissuaded by a few guys with semiautomatic weapons. Yes, tyrants did, in the past, try to take away guns, but that was in a time where hand-to-hand, person-to-person combat mattered. Now despots just take over armies.
(3) Don't make me quote statistics about how many more gun accidents occur in the home vs. times a person actually defended himself against an attacker with a firearm. This is especially true for those who have no (or little) firearm training. If a rapist comes for a woman, and she doesn't have any training with her firearm, is the rapist going to be dissuaded? Or instead, is the rapist going to just kick the gun out of her hand and/or use it on her? Further, the introduction of firearms in criminal encounters only heightens the tension, makes the criminal more apprehensive and more likely to use deadly force, and more likely that someone will get killed. In the hands of a responsible few, firearms may prevent some crime, but there's simply no way that handing out guns to everyone would.
(4) 2d Amendment "under attack"? Hardly. More and more states in the past 10 years have passed "concealed carry" laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons in public? That's hardly the second amendment under attack. Oh, and the assault weapons ban that was passed under Bush? Allowed to expire. And the loophoole where people can buy firearms at shows without background checks? Still there. I wouldn't say that the second amendment is under attack whatsoever.

Answer 7

Being a Life Member of the NRA, I couldn't agree more.

The thing that amazes me is that they anti-gun crowd believes that the word "People" in the Second Amendment doesn't mean citizens, it means the Army. Only the Army can have guns

If that's the case then, does the word "People" in the First Amendment mean that only the Army has the right of free speech and the Right to Congregate?

I think that the framers of the Constitution are far smarter than these folks give them credit for being.

Answer 8

I think you are totally correct because the founding fathers had to deal with the exact same gun issues we have now.

Violent felons purchasing guns from dealers on street corners

Armor piercing bullets

Fully automatic weapons

Daytime shootouts on busy streets in Los Angeles by bank robbers

Teenagers going on shooting sprees in their schools

6 year olds taking guns to school and accidentally shooting the girl sitting at the next desk over

---

I have yet to hear the government tell me that it is illegal for me to have my gun.

This is what I do hear:

I must do everything within my power (and then some) to ensure that no child will gain access to it

I don't have need an automatic weapon to protect myself or my family

I don't need armor piercing bullets to protect myself or my family

My neighbors, and society in general, should be reassured that I am legally allowed to own my gun because I followed the rules and waited the specified amount of time while the dealer made sure as well

That I have actually taken the time to learn how to properly use my gun without endangering myself, my family, or others around me

Answer 9

I agree with you 120% Every person should carry a gun, this would greatly reduce the crime rate! Of course like anything im sure we would have the few idiots out there who would abuse it, but its a mute point you will always have the people who are against guns ( which i think it so stupid) and you will always have the people like Rosey Odonal (sp) who want to ban guns but still want her body guards to be able to carry them to protect HER buy all means. Go figure.( I think it was her who said it, it was a well knows woman)

I personally Love guns, I think everyone should know how to use one and own one. and I will never give up my guns, even if there is a mandait on them someday, they will have to pry it out of my cold dead hands!

Also Hate the laws in some states where if you do have a gun the the car it has to be disassembled and un loaded and in the trunk gee-sh, Hold on Mr rapest or car jacker while i put together my gun and load it so i can protect myself. I would like to know the idiots who think up these rules!

The 2nd amendment was created for a reason and we are stomping all over it and the rest of our Constitution.!
Gun Control = Using both hands! ha!

Answer 10

You should pardon the expression, but the second amendment is suffering from overkill, brought on by Gun Lobbyists.

Your interpretation of the amendment is correct. However, this does not support the sale of AK-47s, Armor piercing bullets, and other such fun stuff. Defending yourself is a noble principle. Turning an attacker (or a deer) into instant hamburger is not.

I am afraid that the 'attack' will continue as long as guns are seen as testosterone boosters, and not simple protective devices.