The 2ND Amendment...?

Question

As the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads:

"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."

My question is this: Am I the only person who see's the fact that Military is controlled by the government and that Militias, necessary at the time of writing this document, are virtually nonexistant in the context of which they were writing?

No longer having groups like the Minute Men, do we really need freedom to bear fully automatic assault rifles?

Guns in the late 1700s were muzzle loaders which weren't accurate at 30 feet. Today we have fully automatic pistols, which cost nothing to manufacture, that can be concealed under a jacket. Do people really need weapons like this to keep up a nonexistant Militia??

I'm definately not arguing against firearms, not at all. I'm arguing against being able to go down the street to the gun shop and being able to purchase a nearly military grade rifle for, comparatively, next to nothing. I mean, I support one's right to defend his or her self, as well as one's family, but do we really need to do it with automatic weapons?

Yeah, but it's one sentence. If they wanted to do it separately they would have put it into two. The right to bear arms is directly concurrent with the necessity of a militia at the time.

Let me put it this way: Is anybody concerned with the 3rd Amendment? Seriously, how many people upon reading that knew what the 3rd Amendment was? (Its Protection Against Quartering Troops by-the-by)

Is the Amendment necessary today?

Um... Well first of all MJ, I never said anything about the legality of such weapons, and the casuality of the way I addressed them was only to argue my point better (which has nothing to do with the types of weapons killing people with).

I wasn't addressing the guns, I was addressing the Amendment itself.

I'm really not trying to insult you, and I'm sorry that you took it that way (which you obviously did considering the meanness intended in your response), but I just feel that something needs to be done to limit the veritable arsenals available to people today.

(Oh, by the way, you guys really don't need to be d***ks about it, I'm only playing the devils advocate here, quite frankly I could give a s*** about guns)

See, I can live with ikemans answer...

But yes I am, and was before I asked the question, well aware that automatic weapons are illegal in almost all 50 States. I was merely saying that to prove my point more thoroughly.

MJ, it has nothing to do with the weapons, automatic, semi or otherwise. My argument has nothing to do with the fire rate of a AR-15 Carbine (which, incidentally, is legal for civillian possession).

My point is that the 2nd Amendment is rather outdated, so couldn't we put a few more restrictions on the number of firearms available to the public? I mean, generally the governments doing a pretty good job at protecting us. Or do you not think so?

Answer 1

While we can't really know how the framers wrote the Constitution, we can try to interpret it as best we can, which means that America can't really restrict guns. If anything the Framers put it in so people could defend themselves, but wheres the line drawn between self-defense and keeping an armoury because you like gun? I don't understand why anybody would really need something like the AR-15 either, but we can't do anything about it, so why try to restrict the right when all it does is make people angry.

You'd do well to not use the whole "automatic pistols" thing as well... I know what you meant but its really not needed for the purpose of your argument.

Answer 2

For one thing fully automatic weapons are illegal in most of the 50 states, and are reserved specifically for the police and military. Though the semi-auto versions of these weapons are available and a person can order kit through the mail to make them fully automatic. But do we need these types of weapons? Probably not. Militias were needed back then because we didn't have a large enough army at the time and needed them to augment the regular forces. In the unlikely event that the United States finds it self fighting a war on its own soil them perhaps the militias will be needed again. I pray that never happens.

Answer 3

The 2nd Amendment is not just about militia's. There is to parts to it. The first part is about militia's while the second part gives the right to the people to bear arms thus the comma between the two. It just says that these two things shall not be infringed. And about fully automatic firearms they are illegal unless you have a Federal Firearm License. Which aren't that easy to get. Any way you can't it much with them so semi auto fire is more precise and deadlier.

Answer 4

The founders of this country were wizards with language, particularly by modern standards. There are at least two interpretations built into the amendment. One is that the people must be armed in order to participate in the militia for the common defense of the state. Alternately, understanding their often stated mistrust of standing armies, the people must be armed to defend themselves against government tyranny enforced by militias. No, it's not outdated in the least.

As a side note, you might want to tidy up some of the blatant misinformation you use concerning guns.

Answer 5

a brief explanation of Militia as the law stands today make sure to read past National Guard (sourced below)

Qoute from a source FYI accuracy of weapons during the time period in question.
""""""Early firearms weren't as powerful or accurate as today's firearms, but a few came close. Rifles could hit targets as far away as 400-500 yards (4 to 5 football field lengths). Muskets were close range weapons, so they weren't used on targets much beyond 100 yards. This difference in range caused a serious problem for the British.
Rifling machine at Colonial Williamsburg, circa 1986-87 (Davis Family Archive)


A British Officer, Col George Hanger, witnessed his bugler's horse shot out from under him at very long range. He later measured the distance several times , a "full 400 yards" (a respectable achievement even by today's standards)""""

Answer 6

Do you have any knowledge of firearms? It doesn't appear that you do. Before you start a debate you should at least research your argument.

For instance these two quotes are not valid arguments:
"do we really need freedom to bear fully automatic assault rifles?"
"Today we have fully automatic pistols"

Please tell me where you have seen LEGAL fully automatic assault rifles or pistols? Legally owned fully automatic firearms are very rare and are considered "Class 3 Firearms." The restrictions for legally owning these types of weapons are very strict, and their prices are very high, placing them out of reach of the average citizen. Furthermore, a high standing law official such as a Chief of Police, Sheriff, or District Attorney must personally conduct your background check and sign your application giving their approval to purchase such a weapon. Crimes with legal class 3 firearms are almost non-existent.

Firearms which have been ILLEGALLY modified by the user to perform in fully automatic mode are ILLEGAL, therefore these are not supported under the 2nd amendment.

You should educate yourself on a topic before making such assinine statements.

Edit:
You have yet to make a valid argument.

"I support one's right to defend his or her self, as well as one's family, but do we really need to do it with automatic weapons"

You are not speaking in any way towards the 2nd amendment. Why do you continuously bring up automatic weapons when they play no part in the actual crimes being committed? Semi-automatic handguns are the most commonly used firearm in a violent crime, so why do you continue to focus on automatic weapons?

I'm not offended by your opinion at all, I'm offended by your lack of knowledge of what you are talking about.

Edit:
How is the inclusion of fully automatic weapons in your argument going to further prove your argument when they are not even available to the common person, and aren't being used in crimes? The average person cannot and does not own a fully automatic weapon. Most violent crimes are being committed with semi-automatic handguns, not legal fully-automatic weapons. The only fully-automatic weapons that are to be of any concern are the ones made illegally.

Answer 7

The second amendment adds an element of balancing to our country that is essential to maintain freedoms. It is more hazardous to oppress a person who may be armed that one that is not, so there is less oppression.

The right to bear arms acts as an essential deterrent to a wide range of offensive behaviors.

There are, however, costs, such as the escalation of many crimes, and an increase in accidental deaths. But it is impossible to dismiss the positive effects, that have help lead to the prosperity of the country.

It's not the right to bear arms is needed to protect us form invasion, it's needed to protect us from tyrants.

Answer 8

The point is that the government controls the military. If the government is corrupted (think Pakistan), the people need to have the means to fight back. By the time that you actually would need a weapon/the militia would start to revitalize, it is too late to get weapons.

Answer 9

How about facist Italy in world war 2? Prior to that they didn't need a militia, I bet millions of people wish they had guns then.

How about if someone breaks into your house and tries to rob you at gunpoint? Should you not have the means to protect yorself?

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

Answer 10

The second amendment does not address the 'need' to bear arms, it concerned with the 'right' to bear arms.