My copy of the U.S. Constitution states the 2nd amendment as follows...?

Question

"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." OK, we now have a well regulated, and well paid militia, called the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, munincipal police forces, and highway patrols, so why not outlaw handguns and rifles in this country, which take 45,000 civilian lives in America each year?

n, a military force, consisting of civilians trained as soldiers and available to supplement the regular armyin an emergency" Websters. Sounds like reserves to me, folks, not, every american!

Answer 1

Every citizen is their own Army of One! What do you want to be virtually gun crime free like the JAPANESE!?!

Answer 2

It's impossible to read the Constitution without recognizing the need to interpret the intent along with the letter. The last part of the 2nd amendment indicates the letter, what it's saying. The first part indicates the intent, why this amendment exists at all.

But anyway. One of the main arguments I hear from opponents of ANY kind of gun control is that if owning guns is a crime then only criminals will own guns. I presume that their thinking is based on the premise that society is much safer when criminals don't know who's armed. Or something along those lines, meaning I suppose that if everyone carried a weapon, there would be little (but perhaps not zero) crime, as the criminal might recognize that there's nothing the criminal could do to me that I can't also do to the criminal.

Fair enough. This is known as deterrence, and is the same policy cited to stock nuclear weapons during the cold war.

But as an extension of that, would it follow that the MORE guns a society had (assumed to be possessed by both criminal and non-criminal), the LESS crime there would be? And consequently, would it follow that the less crime there is, the fewer gun-related deaths there would be?

Let's find out.

Of the 36 richest nations in the world (source: World Bank), the United States of America has the highest rate of gun-related deaths (defined as murders, accidents, and suicides), at 14.24 deaths per 100,000 residents (source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Japan had the lowest, at 0.05 deaths per 100,000 residents.

Based upon our above reasoning (you know, the one where we assume that the more guns there are, the fewer gun-related deaths there are), we should expect that Japan is one of the safest nations in the world and therefore must have among the highest guns owned per capita, and that the US is one of the most dangerous nations in the world and therefore must have among the lowest guns owned per capita.

Is that the case? Are there more guns per capita in Japan than in the US? I don't have the research in front of me, but my suspicion is that there aren't. But I'm willing to be proven wrong on that one if someone can show me a credible source.

Answer 3

Even assuming that the military IS a militia (it isn't), parse the sentence.

Is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" a complete sentence? No, it is not. It is the "dependent clause".

Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." a complete sentence? Yes, it is. It is an "independent clause".

In other words, the dependent clause doesn't rule. The independent does. They could have written "A horse and buggy, being essentials of transportation in 1776, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what a militia is.

Look carefully at the independent clause. It PRESUMES the existence of the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't create it, and leaves no room for its limitation.

Answer 4

We have the right BECAUSE of the Army, Navy, etc...

The notion behind the Second Amendment was that if the civilian population was unarmed, then there would be nothing to stop a government that became corrupt. They would merely use the military as a means to control the population, while eliminating the democracy in some sort of coup.

This is the reason we have the right to bear arms. This is also the reason that soldiers swear to defend the Constitution, and not the government.

Answer 5

You are reading into the second amendment like everyone else who wants gun control.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

This is reserving the States right to keep a militia.


"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

This is preserving my right to bear arms


"shall not be infringed"

This says that neither the States right to have a militia or my right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

A government class would verify that for you.

Answer 6

I don't own a weapon. But, I am a card-carrying member of the NRA.

I don't want to live in a country where only the police, the military and the thugs have guns.

If guns are banned, the only people who would obey the law and turn in their weapons would be the ones that already obey the gun laws. The thugs would still have them - just like they do now.

I want the freedom and right to purchase a weapon if I feel a need to own one.

Answer 7

Looks more like a list:

A well regulated militia for the purpose of securing a free state AND

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

Shall not be infringed.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

But if your point is to eliminate tools and materials that are used to kill, why not go a step further? Outlaw: pit bulls, cats, rattlesnakes, belts, ropes, varnish, alcohol, paint thinner, cars, bicycles, matches, firewood, bows and arrows, horses and carriages, ovens, pretzels, abortions, freezers, doctors, nurses, garage doors. . .

Can anybody add anything that may aid the accidental or intentional taking of human life?

Answer 8

The military is not a militia. Check your definition of the terms.

The 2nd Amendment only limits federal regulation of firearms. Unlike most of the rest of the Bill of Rights (except the 7th Amendment, and grand juries) the 2nd Amendment was never incorporated against the states. So, the 2nd does not prohibit state regulation, because states have specific sovereign rights.

Now, if you want to convince individual states to outlaw firearms in their entirety, you are welcome to try.

Answer 9

The Army works for the government NOT YOU
In a few years they will be rounding YOU up for the
REZ just like they did the origional and true Natives of this Land.
After they outlaw protections gauranteed in the Constitution which is a lying joke.
And then they will burn you in an oven like they did 5 million jews and 6 million other undesireables labled as useless eaters because NOONE LEARNED
RULE ONE
SHARE

Answer 10

It is very simple. If the government is the only group with guns, the rest of us are slaves.

There is no more basic right than that of a person to protect their own lives and their own property.

I've heard all the anti-gun statistics and they are pretty much unreliable as they are refuted by lots of other pro-gun statistics.

Part of freedom is that a person has a right to personal property for whatever use they make of the property. Owning a gun is property and for 99.9999999% of people that own guns, they never kill anyone with it.

Criminals kill people. A criminal will kill people whether it is with a gun or some other tool.

You can't "outlaw" criminals so you go after the tool. That is non-linear logic.

Answer 11

The word "militia" seems to be the issue; and outlawing handguns seems to break with the spirit of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed."