i know that the constitution allows the right to bear arms, but is there any passage within the Constitution?

Question

that in some way sees gun-control laws as necessary or implies that guns can be dangerous?

Answer 1

Nope. The right to bear arms was implemented in the constitution so that any threats to foreign occupation and/or British reclamation are consoled. Nowadays we have NORAD and The US Armed Forces but of course, our founding fathers could not have foreseen this. Their main priority was to keep the British out.

Answer 2

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers

Our founding fathers knew that technology would advance. They were not idiots. Though they may not have know what an assault rifle was, they knew that weapons were getting better and better, from the blunder-buss to the cannons on ships.

The 2nd amendment was not designed to keep the British government out but was put there so that ANY government, including and especially the Federal government of America would not, could not, and never can deny the American citizens of their basic freedoms.

Least we forget, the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. When we decided that we have had enough, do you think for one moment that if even 10% of American were to rise up in arms that the Federal government would survive?

The military would not step in. There would be too many who would agree with the people. The oath taken by the military at induction begins, I (name) do swear to uphold the constitution of the united states of america. Stop. Nothing after that matters and many of our service men and women know and believe in that.

Freedom is not free. I do not know one politician that when looking down the business end of a gun would stand up and say take away the 2nd ammendment.

When they do decide to take away our guns, then that will be the day the 2nd American Revolution begins. Count on it.

Answer 3

No, The Constitution Quarrantees the right of citizens to possess and bear arms. Nowhere in it does it say that they are dangerous. The Anti-gun people are just trying to scare you with all their retoric. If they ever manage to take away an American citizen's right to possess a firearm then your gonna see this country under a totalitarian Government so fast it'll make your head spin. Other countries that don't have your best interest at heart will then be able to come in and takeover like you have never seen. Once the Government takes our guns they can then control the masses and there will be nothing the citizens can do but OBEY them or be killed. While we still have the right to possess our firearms this country will be a safer place for you and me.
Remember!
Guns don't kill people, People do!.
Outlaw guns and only Outlaws will have them!
Protect our right to bear arms.
Our country's existence depends on it!

Answer 4

Thomas Jefferson also wrote " An unarmed citizen is no longer a CITIZEN, but a subject," and how true it is !

The Second Amendment , while stating "a well regulated militia" says nothing about regulating firearms, only that militias must be regulated. That means no anti government armed paramilitary types.

I , for one, have always advocated that veterans groups like VFW, American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, should constitute a militia of vets, backing up law enforcement, Homeland Security, National Guard unit in time of emergency. Since we all took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, such militias would be completely legal.

Want to abolish my right to keep and bear arms ? Better have a will made out before you come to get them from me !

Answer 5

While your doing the suggested reading also try reading some of the letters between the Founding Fathers and you will see that Thomas Jefferson wrote that the second amendment "is a last resort against a tyrannical government"
That wasn't speaking of Britain we had already sent them home.

Without the second amendment you wouldn't have the first amendment

When you study history it helps if you study about the actual people who made it that way you know why they did what they did.
1776 - Draft Constitution for the State of Virginia
Category: Arms
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].
Reference: Jefferson Writings, Peterson, ed., 344.
Thomas Jefferson
1785 - letter to Peter Carr
Category: Arms
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Reference: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Library of Congress, Mansucript Division, Microfilm Roll #4
Thomas Jefferson
1796 - letter to George Washington
Category: Arms
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
Reference: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Library of Congress, Mansucript Division, Microfilm Roll #51
Thomas Jefferson
1824 - letter to John Cartwright
Category: Arms
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition, Lipscomb and Bergh, ed., vol. 16 (45)

Answer 6

No. Read the Constitution. Only liberals are afraid of guns. Guns prevent liberals from shredding the Constitution and declaring that they no longer feel the need to be elected.

Answer 7

One of the words within the Second Amendment is regulated, which of course has the word regulate as its root.

Regulate:
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. (Get it right)

2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. (Get it right)

3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation

4. to put in good order

Considering these definitions the Founders can easily be understood to mean for a militia to function properly would require state-of-the-art weapons.

Which, of course, at the time the Constitution was written, the weapons were state-of-the-art.

There are no restrictions in the Constitution as to weapons the militia (people) should or could have in their possession if a militia is to function properly if needed. The only restrictions are found outside the Constitution and thus can be construed as being put in place by people who fear armed law abiding citizens.

Trying to argue against the validity of the Second Amendment by stating that weaponry as far outstripped anything the Founders could have imagined is like trying to argue the First Amendment should be infringed because the Founders could have never imagined space based communications satellites and the internet.

If we had to fight the Revolution over again, starting tomorrow, we wouldn't be using smoothbore single-shot flintlock muzzle-loaders or primitive breech-loaders.

Since the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution as a last measure against a tyrannical government, a Constitutional government would have nothing to fear from an armed populace while a government outside the Constitution would definitely try anything it could to disarm the populace.


Things that make you go hmmmmm.




"The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it."
James A. Donald


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson




VeggieTart, an indignity is not a violation of rights.

Read Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word, unreasonable. Is there a difference between unreasonable and the word, all?

Now read Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Did you notice the exception?


Do you believe Abraham Lincoln was a great President?

Here is one of his proclamations.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425


What about FDR, was he a great leader?

What about this? It's the text of Executive Order No 9066

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=74&page=transcript

Answer 8

How about the right to arm bears?

And with the Second Amendment fans bleating about the need to have guns to protect their rights, hey, our rights are being violated as we speak! I don't see the NRA screaming about warrantless wiretapping or having to take our shoes off at the airport or any of the other indignities the Bush administration is cooking up for us. You all might have a little more credence with us gun control folks if you used your guns to protect people's rights--besides your right to own guns--with those guns you love.

Answer 9

There would be not much point in protecting yourself with something non-dangerous and the consitution gave the right to bear arms because at that time the protection of their property and themselves was the responsibility of individuals.

Answer 10

This is all it says:

"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."