Do you really understand the 2nd Amendment?

Question

Often when questions get brought up regarding the 2nd Amendment and besides the poorly written reply that "Dude, y would ou need one?" there is always the comment: "You don't (insert gun that isn't some expensive hunting rifle) need them to go hunting."

Do you people honestly believe that the 2nd Amendment was about hunting? have we come that far from our heritage to think that hunting, not defense against tyrants, thugs, and invaders is a more valid reason?

So here's the gauntlet, I want all the people here who have no qualms about gun bans to present a strong case. I'm guessing this will be very entertaining to say the least.

Answer 1

Amen Brother !! The 2nd amendment states that we have the right to bear arms since it is necessary for the security of a free state.

I have a number of firearms, all legal, and here in the state of California it's a fine line !! And FYI, in California it's a 10 day waiting period.

My FIRST firearm was a kit-built Hawkens rifle... Dad's logic was that should KNOW a rifle. I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts from an NRA instructor (and cop). In 2001, I inherited a Model 1917 Enfield from my late father: He got it on his 10th B-day, at that time in Montana he was the man of the house and responsible for food-on-the-hoof.

I have my 1911 M1A1.45 Colt, and a 9mm Berreta from my USN Aircrew days. I have also purchased an M-1 Garand, an M-1 Carbine, and an M-16 (pre-assault weapon ban).

The ONLY firearm kept assembled and loaded in the house is a Remington 870... have NEVER used it for hunting... it's SOLE purpose is to RACK a round... which has twice driven off burglars and once held an idiot burglar at his knees until the police arrived.

Quite honestly... they can have my firearms when the pull them from my cold dead fingers

Answer 2

Lets pretend there never was a 2nd Amendment.. I am sure we don't need the Government or an Amendment to the Constitution to realize that all citizens who want them for Defense, Hunting, Target Shooting, Collecting etc.. shall have them without the approval needed from Anyone, Anyplace, Anytime.. Sport and Survival and recreation are all thats needed to take into consideration..Basically its a matter of FREE CHOICE AS WHETHER OR NOT TO POSSESS THEM... The Government or no other human being or law should even be considered before one can own and use them...

Answer 3

James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it.

The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people."

Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia's constitutional convention in 1788: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually."

Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails.

Excerpts: NRA-ILA 5/3/2005

I couldn't say it that well so I deferred to an authority. Please look it up and read at length.

Answer 4

The Second Amendment gives US citizens the right to keep and bear arms, period. This was to insure self-preservation of the citizen and to assure that Americans would ALWAYS be able to defend themselves from threats, foreign OR domestic (read that: foreign infringement, home-brewed terrorists, nut-cases gone ballistic, bad government, etc). No Federal or State law and no city ordinance should over-ride that.

The problem is that guns get into the hands of CRIMINALS and mentally/emotionally deficient individuals who SHOULDN'T HAVE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, and THAT is what the law makers should concentrate on. However, they want an easy fix. There is no easy fix, but if law-abiding, able citizens complying with our constitutional right (to keep and bear arms) are around when some nut-case goes ballistic, LIVES WILL BE SPARED. Why is everyone forgetting the cafeteria shooting where a couple of armed, off-duty police officers in plain clothes stopped a similar shooting spree by taking out the shooter before he killed everyone in that cafeteria?

H

Answer 5

"A well regutated militia, being nessesary for the security of a FREE state; the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed" The 2nd Amendment.

Never has there been so many words to say one load of crap as the words of Robert David M. The amendment is stated exactly as above. Taking it literally, we the people DO have the right to KEEP ANY kinds of arms, we DO have the right to carry them in public, and we DO have the right to use them as a method of self defence from civilian hostilty and government infringment. ANY law restricting the sale of firearms is an infringment on our rights. Any person with violent intents can aquire firearms by other means than the local gun store. Guns are sold on the street every day. If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. Where does that leave us as law abiding citizens but to give up our heritage and rely solely on the goverment as our protector. Do you really believe that several police offecers will instantaneously show up the moment you dial 911 on your cell phone and stop the gunman that is threatening your life? You would have to be a fool to believe that. How many people at Virginia Tech do think would have died if a decent, law abiding citizen could have stopped the attacker with his/her own handgun?

That is why the 2nd amendment was written. It is not about hunting, although that's one of the benefits.

As opposed to Robert M's case, we have the right to collect arms. There is nothing wrong with owning more than one hunting rifle, more than one handgun, or more than one combat/assult rifle. As the Amendment says, "a well regulated militia, being nessary for the security of a free state." This means-A STATE WITHOUT A MILITIA IS NIETHER FREE, NOR SECURE. The writters of the Constitution intended for the people to mantian their military abilties so as to prevent the government form becoming too big and overpowering. Furthermore, many families have guns that are hierlooms. They are passed down from generation to generation. This would be unlawful under Robert's system of regulations as he states, "guns are not to be...handed freely".

Gun Control is not the answer. The answer lies with education. I believe the United States should follow the view of Switzerland concerning firearms education. In Swizterland, they teach their children to use firearms with care and responsiblity. By law, they must have a rifle and 1000 rounds of ammunition and pass a test to show they know how to use it by the age of twelve. Look at thier economy; it's very stable, why else would people send their money to Swiss banks? Look at their crime rate; it's the lowest in the world. Look at how many nations try to pick a fight with them; none.

How I wish we could get back the beliefes our founding fathers had; they had wisdom that is not bound by time.

Answer 6

The 2nd amendment states that we have the right to bear arms since it is necessary for the security of a free state.

It has nothing to do with hunting. Hunting is not why the 2nd amendment was written. But there are numerous uses of firearms, whether it be protection from home invasions or for sporting uses.

We just need to prevent ******* from getting guns when the rest of us repsonsible citizens can use them properly.

Lock up criminals, not guns.

Answer 7

It has nothing to do with hunting, or with guns having a "sporting purpose" We have the right to keep and bear arms because we need to be anle to overthrow a tyrannical government if everything else fails to make the government honor the rights of the people.
Arms is an inclusive term meaning everything that can be used as a weapon. The fact that the debate has been turned into gun control instead of arms control means we have already lost most of our rights to keep and bear arms.

Answer 8

The 2nd ammendment gives us the right to "keep and bear arms". Number 1, it gives us the right to KEEP arms, which means we have the RIGHT to own them. Number 2, it gives us the right to bear arms, so if our nation were ever to come under attack, we have the right to fight back. That is highly unlikely, but if it ever happens, we have the right to fight. In the meantime, we can use our guns to hunt.

Answer 9

The second amendment was originally written to protect us, the citizens, from them, the government.

Answer 10

I think that we should have the right to own guns. We may need to revise our gun laws to be a little more strict, however. I don't think anyone who only wants a gun to defend him or herself in the event of:
1. home invasion
2. car jacking
3. mugging or worse;
would care to wait a bit longer to have extensive background checking, including mental health history done on them.

I think they are good for defensive purposes or hunting.

I, even as a conservative, feel that we need to make some changes to filter out some of the obviously dangerous or "potentially dangerous" people who can still get guns within 3 days in our country.

Great question.