Why have the battle over gun control and the meaning of the 2nd amendment become continuous features of americ

Answer 1

The latest case about the meaning of the Second Amendment being a "group" right instead of an individual one, this is the premise of the Washington DC law and restrictions, will actually be the third time the Supreme Court has taken up that issue. The first was in the 1870's, next in the 1930's and now. Each time the 2nd has been held to be an individual right. It is doubtful that this will change as precedence is an important consideration in Supreme Court cases but it is possible; more likely though the actual reason for the appeal is to see how far they can restrict and still get away with it. This amendment is a continual feature because people who was to strip Americans of their rights will not stop trying to do so. A reading of Federalist paper 46 outlines that many of the writers of the Constitution thought that the right of the people to be armed should be the first right granted and the reasoning behind it is simple-unless you have the means to protect yourself or to protect your rights then you have no rights at all, just privileges granted by the government that they can take away whenever they want. This is also I think understood by some trying to change this to a "group" right, once that is done they can start rewriting others until the people have no rights just the privileges allowed them by the government.

Answer 2

"feature"? Okay...if you want to call it a feature, I'll work with that. The 2nd amendment makes all the other amendments safe, when you start with gun control, you see rights being removed and that does not sit well with anyone. You can control something right into non existence. We won't allow that to happen. Just as the first amendment also may piss a lot of people off with their words, but they have the right to say them and I will defend that right.

Answer 3

The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms.
If that right is taken away and all guns are taken from those who own them the following will be the scenario:

People who are honest will give up their guns and home protection, but the "not so honest" will obtain them through the black market and illegal trade. So criminals will still have guns, and they know that everyone else is not allowed to have them.

Who do you think will walk away unhurt, the father with a baseball bat protecting his family and possessions, or the criminal with the illegal firearm?

Plus no one can change or modify the U.S. Constitution, but they can interpret it differently. For instance some say that it gives the states right to bear arms, not the individual. Other say it is the individuals right. Its all in how the government interprets it.

Answer 4

The issues and controversy with gun control spans much deeper than it's simple appearance. I'll try to limit this from being a massive wall of text as much as I can.

First off, most gun control laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Meaning things like firearm registration, specific firearm bans, background checks, and others only effect those who are willing to follow them. A good example of this is Australia. Recently they passed a complete ban on all firearms, with a few extreme exceptions. Over the course of a year, their crime rate skyrocketed to unfathomable levels, and they are now forced to review their decision for possible overturning.

Criminals will still get their hands on weapons illegally and use them accordingly to how they see fit. No law or regulation will ever change this. This is why most gun control laws that are past are absolutely asinine because they do not hinder any illegal activity, but rather only affect the law abiding citizens. It's unfair to essentially target people who have done nothing to receive such limitations or restrictions. It doesn't help that most anti-gun lobbyist are extremely misinformed and often support banning things without even knowing what it is they are banning.

Here is a great example of ignorant lobbyist that plague our nation, and unfortunately this kind of thing happens quite often : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Further more, it extends even further past the ineffectiveness of most gun laws. By allowing our government to regulate firearms we are allowing them to determine what is best for us, despite our own personal opinions and view points. A good example of this is the illegal use of marijuana. Even though medical studies have shown its far less damaging than cigarettes, and far less disorienting than alcohol, our government has determined that its a substance its citizens should not be using.

Think of the government as a Nanny. It will enforce what it thinks is best for you, despite what you may actually feel or believe. How would you feel if the government determined obesity as problem society could not deal with on its own, and started enforcing diets by law country wide? While the reasoning behind such a law is just, it definitely steps past the line of unconstitutional and against peoples rights.

Gun control laws follow the same suit. Most are passed because a few people think its best for the majority, despite in some cases statistics show otherwise, as well as the majority of society strongly disagreeing.

Since our constitution was formed and the United States has progressed though history, our federal government has gone from a small localized government that over viewed and kept state laws and power in check, to a centralized federal government that has the power to overwrite any say from individuals and/or state authority based on its own discretion.

It's getting to the point where people are starting to lose rights originally protected by the constitution, and unfortunately its extending much farther than gun control. The Patriot Act is a good example of this.

Hopefully with this view point you can better understand why so many people are upset with gun control. Not all gun control is bad, some laws are very well thought out and benefit society. Unfortunately, most do not.

Answer 5

It comes down to cherry picking the Bill of Rights.
Some think the Bill of Rights shouldn't be regulated for speech but for guns.
Some think the Bill of Rights is fluid and should be change by the wimps of today's polictics.
Some even put words that are not there like Freedom FROM Religion and they think that there should be no expression of religion expect their own or what they want to see.

The framers of the Consitution had it right.

We should read and leave it alone.

In my mind if you can start removing one what is going to stop removing them all and where do you stop?

Answer 6

If you were to complete this question and find a more suitable place for it (ie, outside the military section), I would gladly educate an answer for you.

Answer 7

As long as there are people trying to strip us of our rights, there will be a battle. So, the question really boils down to why people want to forcibly control others.

Answer 8

How about you do your own research instead of relying on other people to write your Weeple response for you.

Answer 9

why do you want to know? Is this a homework question? Your going to wind up in porn if you keep coming here and asking other people to do your homework for you.

Answer 10

They should have a shootout between those for and those against guns. Although, I'm fairly certain that would be a lopsided battle.