English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I was just wondering how many people actually know why the right to bear arms was included in the bill of rights.

2007-06-15 02:52:04 · 20 answers · asked by gerafalop 7 in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

Because the King would not allow any of the kingdoms possessions to have weapons thus it was easier for the King to control them.

So, when this country was formed, it was a country of and for the people and they power was the peoples and not the government. Thus, allow them to be armed and not held hostage by the King or any government.

2007-06-15 02:57:02 · answer #1 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 8 0

Article 1 section 8 of the US constitution reads "The Congress shall have power to...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia"

The ability to arm the militia was also seen as the ability to disarm the militia. Therefore the framers wanted some protections for the militia.
To do this they decided to prevent the government from taking guns away from individuals (ie keep arms "right") who are connected with the militia, ie, all individuals over 18 years old who have not got a criminal record. They also protected an individual so they could be in the militia, ie the bearing arms "right".

As all the clauses in the BoR are designed to prevent the government from doing something, the 2A therefore prevents the govt from arbitrarily taking arms from individuals, only after due process can arms be taken away, and the "right" infringed upon. It also prevents them saying that black people, or women etc cannot serve in the militia, they can again, only say that people who have broken the law cannot serve in the militia.

Therefore the militia has arms in the event of an emergency, like a dictator or bad government, and it also has members to use these arms to take over this possible bad government.

2007-06-15 12:07:16 · answer #2 · answered by Dave 2 · 1 0

"[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"

Alexander Hamilton

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

James Madison

2007-06-15 10:11:44 · answer #3 · answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4 · 4 0

One of the primary reasons the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights was to give people the ability to help defend their country,or to have the power to revolt against it's government if such a thing became necessary again. Although one cannot rationally argue against the fact that the founding fathers were perfectly fine with the idea of firearm ownership for personal protection as well,unless they intend to ignore the fact that there were men walking the streets of the city armed while they were signing the constitution,with absolutely no complaints from anyone. The evidence that our founding fathers,and our government were amenable to the idea of civilian firearm ownership,even for personal uses is evident for anyone to see.

AD

2007-06-15 10:42:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

There were many theories on this by the Framers, but the intent was to allow the citizens the right of self defense and to deter the government from arbitrarily usurping the rights of citizens. If you are really interested in some of thinking on this matter I have included a link to a website with many quotes on the matter taken directly from the Federalist Papers.

Happy reading!

2007-06-15 10:07:24 · answer #5 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2 0

I don't have the papers that I had to use when I took constitutional law but from my remembrance it is because at that time we had state militias that all were involved in thus all men (and women were not included since they both did not vote or join the militias) needed a weapon to part of this militia. And when the British did come here as part of the Revolutionary War they quartered themselves in American homes many of whom did not have protection from the British who used their overwhelming force to take over cities like New York or Boston.

2007-06-16 11:23:05 · answer #6 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 0 1

To give the people the right to defend themselves against militia or any invading forces. It was imperative at that time, I suppor the NRA and I know the real reason why the 2nd amendment was included.

2007-06-15 10:43:46 · answer #7 · answered by cynical 6 · 2 0

Because an armed population has the ability to stand up against an oppressive government. The founding fathers saw what happens when the government has all the power and they wanted to assure the people that the new government wouldn't be able to do what the old one did.

2007-06-15 09:57:37 · answer #8 · answered by Mark B 5 · 9 0

...for when the government gets too big for it's britches.


No really though everyone, sign over your healthcare, welfare, social security and child's education to the government though...makes perfect sense, especially now that they're working on taking guns away too.

I heard after the next election there's going to be a book burning celebration and everyone's getting a grey jumpsuit with a barcode on it.

2007-06-15 10:07:07 · answer #9 · answered by jdm 6 · 3 0

An armed populace is one you have to respect. The British wanted a disarmed populace. It is vital that this is the case, because the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I appreciate that there is debate about the context of militia, but the core purpose is obvious.

2007-06-15 10:03:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers