Is anyone interested in a discussion about the second amendment?

Question

The second Amendment garuntees citizens the right to bear arms. To hunt with and to rpotect their homes and family with. The government arbitrarily amends the constitution by passing laws denying citizens this basic right of self defense and to hunt for food to feed their families.

Answer 1

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.

Now, we get into it, don't we? This is the part of the Constitution that seems to be so inconvenient for some people. Times have changed. Not only has the well regulated militia disappeared, but the right to keep and bear the arms is being chipped away, slowly, but surely.

Every once in a while we hear the lame reasoning that the National Guard is the militia and the rest of the people don't need to keep their arms. But where does the National Guard keep their arms? They keep them locked up securely. It would take hours at the minimum for Guardsmen to drive to their armory and arm themselves in case of an emergency. Somehow, that just doesn't sound like the instant response this amendment invisioned. The Founders were thinking of something like Neighborhood Watch with M-16's

For those who oppose gun ownership by private individuals, there is a "no guns in this house" sticker available which I will send you. Please post it on your mailbox or front door so the predators will know which home to invade without fear of resistance and possible injury.

http://www.hendrixcampaign.com

Answer 2

given that there is no more militia, and that conventional warfare of a citizen militia is impossible against a first world military, the second amendment has become an anachronism.

the Kingdom of Great Britain, for example, is much different when it comes to guns. gun deaths are a fraction of the states'. people aren't being shot down for their wallets because the criminals know that people won't have the guns to shoot back.

it's simply a cultural difference.

a culture of guns breeds gun violence.

being that we're immersed in centuries of molasses thick gun culture, simply outlawing them wouldn't make an immediate radical shift in that culture.

i certainly don't trust the government to make a constitutional amendment anytime soon, clinton and bush both haven't been too kind with it as it stands...

in conclusion: guns are pretty fun. getting shot isn't fun. lots of people get shot and thats really bad. but they're shiny, loud, and destroy things. i instinctively love them.

Answer 3

Sorry, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting.

It was specifically written to allow the citizen's the arms necessary to defeat an over-bearing federal government.

Answer 4

As we have become more urban, than rural as a society, some of the provisions have become obsolete. But, The basic right to keep and bear arms, is what separates us from dictatorship, totalitarianism, facisim, communism, and all the other ism's that strangulate humanity! like IT OR NOT, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, THE IDIOT BEHIND THE TRIGGER DOES!!! WHETHER HE IS A GOVERNMENT THUG, OR A CROOK. Put the blame where it belongs, and leave law abiding citizens alone!

Answer 5

"A well-stocked library, being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Noöne could argue that the above sentence would preclude people from buying their own books-- but why when it's "militia" and "guns", etc people misconstrue the meaning?

The people shouldn't have to fear the government-- the government should fear the people.

----

I'm a liberal and a member of the ACLU. I believe that ALL 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are important.

Answer 6

I think a strict construction of the 2nd Amendment would conclude that the citizens have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government. Therefore I have the right to possess any weapon necessary to accomplish that goal. Give me back my nukes.

Answer 7

Let's explore the question - What did the founding fathers mean by a well-regulated militia? Do we need to be armed to defend ourselves against the government? There are a lot of people who are well-armed, but is there any plausible claim that any regulation is involved at all?

Answer 8

No, that's not what it actually says. You're close, but not exact.

The 2nd Amendment protects against federal regulation of firearms. It does not prohibit state or local gun control laws.

Also, except for the 5th Circuit, most other federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue define it as a collective right based on the preface: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the defense of a free state".

Answer 9

While I agree that most citizens ( barring convicted felons ) should be allowed the right to bear arms, I am unclear on why someone would need a gun like an AK-47 to hunt and provide protection for their families. If you could explain to me why you feel these types of guns do not need to be regulated, I would greatly appreciate it.

Answer 10

Ok, I hate guns. That doesn't mean I've never trained to use a gun. I have. But, I think this amendment was more practical during the time it was written. I think too many people own guns. They are so dang dangerous. Yeah, yeah, I don't want to hear, "I'm careful." There are accidents all the time. There are people out there who wouldn't normally hurt a fly, but catch a lover cheating and "bam!" The law allows you to have a gun. The law allows you to defend yourself. The law does not allow you to defend yourself unless your life is in eminent danger. How many of you have had your lives in danger?