a question about the second amendment?

Question

im studying the amendments in school. i wanna know, in your opinion, why is the second amendment is important to society??

Answer 1

Jsied96, you hsould really give wikipedia it's credit when you copy their words. It is a debate that spans long before the US was fighting for it's freedom in the Revolutionary War. It has been debated since the time of King Henry II who thought all freemen should be required to possess certain arms for defense. The following century King Henry III required all subjects from 15 to 50 years of age to own a weapon other than a knife. In 1671 Parliament created a statute that only allowed firearm possession to those men who met certain property qualifications(wealthy). Then King James II banned protestants' ability to possess firearms. Then the debate turned new corners when Queen Elizabeth I added laws securing a military force through a duty of universal military obligation for all able-bodied males. The English Declaration of Rights was ratified in 1689 affirmed the right to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
Thr Revolutionary War was originally a conflict based on the colonists perceiving the British's efforts to disarm their militias an abuse of power by the king. colonists cited the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws, and Common Law rights to self-defense. Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms. Others perceive a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense. The potential connection between the right of self defense and the new constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. This also has spurred the debate over a standing military run by the government. The second admendment was a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists, called the Massachusetts Compromise, which laid the groundwork to ensure a Bill of Rights would be drafted. It allowed for the protection of governed people while still allowing for the government's right to control the standing army.

During the last two decades, the intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and how the Amendment applies in the twenty-first century, is one of the most frequently debated topics in American politics. The reason may stem in part from the perceived encroachments on, or enhancements of, individual rights to arms, amidst the increased prominence of gun control positions in modern politics.

The modern Second Amendment debate centers on questions such as:

Who does the Amendment mean by "the People"?
Why does the Amendment protect the right to 'keep and bear arms', and not protect just the right to 'bear arms'?
Does "bear arms" or "keep and bear arms" mean the same now as it did in 1789?
Is there significance that the Amendment is constructed of two clauses?
Is there significance that the phrase "defense of himself/themselves and the State" was included in some state constitutions at the time but not included in the Federal Second Amendment?

In addition, the debate often involves discussion focused on more precise details around the word "militia", such as:

Who or what does the Amendment mean by the "militia"?
What relationship does "militia" today have with "militia" in 1789?
What is meant by "well regulated", relative to "militia"?
Does the mention of "militia" in the Second Amendment mean that maintaining viable militia is the 'obvious purpose' of the Second Amendment?

It also often involves topics on differences in historical meanings and thoughts such as:

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?
It also expands to include discussions on the impact among states, such as:

Does the Amendment prohibit states from regulating arms?
Does the Amendment permit some states to deviate from interpretations of the Amendment as taken by other states?

Yes many "terrorists"(word used loosely) have carried the flag of the Second Amendment as their battle cry. I think there is a medium somewhere that would allow us to excercise our right without putting our children and any future generations at undue risk. I believe gun control laws are the way to do this.

Grayrider- You are right there was less gun violence then, but the truth being that guns were less available then than they are today even with gun control laws and the types of guns that were available don't match those of todays standards.. Here's why: the internet, credit cards, and the sheer number of suppliers. There are 80 million REGISTERED gun owners in the US. With a population of 302 million that is about 26% of Americans own a gun legally. Of gun owners 75% own more than one. About 4.6 million guns are made available for civilian use annually in the US today. In 1950 the population of the US was 150 million with an estimated 18% of Americans owning a gun. Gun control doesn't hurt your right to bare arms. It regulates it, just like the government regulates who you can marry, who can drive, who can do certain jobs, etc. I don't happen to think that doing a background check to buy a gun and being required to get it licensed isn't that big of a thing, since you have to pass a test to drive a car or get a licensed to get married (or fish in most states). How does it HURT you? Besides I don't happen to think that you should want anybody else should have access to the weapons that the military has access to. Unless you want to start handing out SAM's, GAM's, and thermonuclear weapons to every Tom, Dick, and Grayrider.

Answer 2

The Second Amendment is important because it was intended to safe guard against an overpowering government. That is the simple answer.

One thing people need to remember, when the constitution was being written, the language was English...true"English" style. For all intense purposes, the language is pretty clear Star_Athelete. The framers did not use "political speak". Nor they did write their words cloaked in a shroud of mystery. Many news laws are so convoluted in their context, it takes an infinite amout of time to even digest them, much less understand them.

Simply put...the "right to bear arms" is as improtant as "freedom of speech". It guarantees the government will not be the ONLY ones in control of the entire populace. This is EXACTLY what the framers intended. Only revisionists think otherwise.

If you reduce a person's ability to protect themselves, their homes, their property, you also reduce their freedom. As Britain and other countries have found out.

Any country that chooses to disarm their citizenry, has ulterior motives. We will live as Russians once did and Chinese now do. Communism.

The idea that the goverment's weapons are so far advanced than the average citizens is not even an arguement. Of course private citizens can't own certain weapons leagally, ie: scud missles, rocket launchers, etc. But, remember the military is still part of THIS country and many who serve would be unwilling to fire upon their own people. History has proven this.

Be not so worried about our domestic fanatics, but more about invaders who wish to take over this country. They won't be using a .357 or a 30.6, they will using chemicals and all manner of warfare. The citizens who are left after an attack will be the ones shooting back. with their atiquated handguns and rifles. However, they will be a fierce lot. Americans are not cowards.

Once you start chipping away at the constitution, you chip away at America's foundation. One amendment at a time goes. Then another. This is would be the most dangerous thing the government could so.

Changing ANY part of the constitution would be nothing more than a convenience to those who think it is an impediment to their will.

Answer 3

In history, any time a government wanted to take rights or freedoms from the people, the first thing done is the banning and confiscation of privately held firearms. The British tried it here before the Revolutionary War, Hitler did, it, the old Soviet Union did it. In order for a ruler, dictator, or whatever to gain power, first thing to do is remove the peoples ability to fight. Without the private possession of firearms, the people lose a major part of that ability.
In fact, there are those who would argue many of the current gun bans in this country are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. When written, the Second Amendment implied that citizens be made available the same weaponry as the military as access too. Today, that would include automatic weapons, large caliber rifles, machine guns, high capacity magazines for those weapons, and all the other goodies that some politician decided I can't handle, because I might hurt myself. We had less gun violence in this country when you could order handguns, rifles, and shotguns from the Sears catalog, and have those guns delivered to your door, than what we have now, with all the restrictions.
Why is the Second Amendment important? Without it, we as a people would not have the guarantee of the right to own and possess firearms. Should the military side with a new government in this country, say a dictatorship, the only defense of freedom and maintaining our rights would be the citizens of this great country. If this sounds a bit "out there", remember, it as happened before in this country, (the Revolutionary War).

Answer 4

Coragryph is on the right path. I have not done any research but have heard of talk about 2 issues.

1. No funds for a standing Army.

2. An armed populace could prevent the new government from being taken over.

I think 1 was of primary concern.

Answer 5

At the time it was enacted, there was a serious concern that the federal govt should not be allowed to have too much power -- and that the presence of an armed citizenry (along with the 10th Amendment) was necessary to ensure that the federal govt did not abuse its power.

In modern times, it's really obsolete -- the sheer firepower available to the federal govt so massively overwhelms the firepower available to the citizens that having personal firearms is really not a defense against govt abuse of power.

Still, people have found a new use for it -- defending themselves against criminals -- while not the original intent, it still provides a way for people to ensure their own safety against a present threat -- just a different one than the framers had envisioned.

Answer 6

Actually, it isn't. I was written when the much of the military power in the United States came from civilians who owned their own guns. War has progressed so much that it can't be fought by civilians. If the United States were in a position to be invaded by another country, then civilian ownership of guns would be a good deterrent since the invading army would face an entire nation of angry people with guns. But we're not. So the second amendment isn't very useful for people who favor gun ownership.

Answer 7

the second amendment guaranteed the people the right to keep and bear arms so that government would be in less of a position to opress its people. Anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army not under civilian control that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe. Real patriots, thanks to their arms were supposed to rise up against opressive government.

While i don't support the killing of innocent men, women and children, Timothy McVeigh considered himself that type of patriot, who was rising up against that type of goverment using the powers granted him by the 2nd amendment.

PS there are 800 million firearms in the whole world. of these, approximately half are found here in the US

Answer 8

it keeps us in control of our own ability to protect whats ours and our family even against a invader or our own Government if need be.
It does also protect us from any invasion, would you parachute into 800, million fire arms not including the military?
Could you imagine the death toll of the invading army with home owners blasting them out of the sky along with the military? " RED DAWN "
Not even to mention the tradition and culture this country was founded on, HUNTING. Kill and Grill, many people survive on game , my family could live with out but we love venison and I also donate about 2-3 deer a year to a local poor family.

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

it was enacted to keep an armed citizenry. If the citizens are unarmed then you have a police state and that aint life liberty and also its there to protect you and yours