the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to bear arms and have a miltia how can this b limited by gov't

Question

the 2nd amendment states "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" the comma shows that the peoples right to bear arms is separated from the militia so dont tell me its only the militia's right to bear arms

the 2nd amendment states "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" it was written with the comma to show that the militia and the peoples rights to bear arms were separate so why can the govenment limit the people and not a militia when many state no longer have militias

Answer 1

All states, plus the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia, have militias. In fact, it's a requirement that they do. Since the Militia Act of 1903 though, we've been called the National Guard.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. Pretty clear cut to me.

Answer 2

There are two arguments in favor of the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the individual citizen the right to bear arms that come to mind.

1. The phrase 'The Right of the People' appears in the 1'st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. There has never been an argument that it doesn't refers to the rights of the individual in the 1st, and 4th, so why should it have a different meaning in the 2nd amendment?

2. In the Constitution, the government does not have rights. The People have rights, the government has powers and authority. A right is always in reference to the individual, not the collective.

Going strictly by the constitution, it would seem that any laws prohibiting gun ownership would be in direct violation of the 2nd amendment. Our court system, though, has upheld these laws. I'm not advocating arming convicted criminals, but referring to those laws that prohibit law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

Answer 3

Citizenry makes up the militia. No matter if it's a draft or a volunteer force. Liberals fear an armed populace yet know that they would never succeed in enforcing a repeal of the 2nd amendment. Less than 1 percent of the police in this nation would be willing to confiscate those weapons and the military is lead by people who would be unwilling to turn their weapons on the citizenry as well.

Answer 4

Because, there are many idiots who claim that the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was to form a state based military (national guard). However, when a person truly investigates the writings of the Founding Fathers, one will discover that it was meant as a check and balance against a government run a muck.

It is an easy topic to enrage that feelings of those who do not know any better, and in doing so get cheap votes for office.

Answer 5

2nd amend... How can this be "limited" by government? Government = Attorneys

By "licensing." Turning your right into a conditional permitted privilege.

When the USA was founded, it was founded as a "Republic."
Well, you all failed to keep it! And for the last one-hundred and thirty-nine years fourteenth amendment citizenship also includes CORPORATIONS, "ARTIFICIAL PERSONS" - and they have more funds and rights than you do, and they have surely taken over.

Now, in 2007, instead of being sovereign North Americans under the rulership of the Almighty, you have "voluntarily" chosen to become feudal serfs feeding from U.S. gov't corporate troughs. It's called "Socialist Security," folks. It's called fiat-funny-monopoly money issued by private parties that you are paying taxes on. It's called "War and Emergency Powers," and you've been conquered! You are under the Jack-Boot of the State.

I kid you not : getting your firearms is going to be easy. You'll see... And it's near time for another planned, chaotic event ...

Answer 6

The comma doesn't just separate the amendment into two separate parts that have nothing to do with each other. Do you even know what a comma is?

Federal courts have written hundreds of pages on this issue of how the two clauses interact. You should go read some of it.

Answer 7

so some distance i think of Brian gave the main suitable answer. The Newt presently inadvertently observed an enticing concern in one among his social time table questions, which touched on the circumstances in Switzerland. each and every person there particularly does take the assumption of a citizen protection rigidity heavily. They very own and prepare on totally automated weapons. interior the U. S. that concept purely gets lip provider. specific, we would probable all bounce to it if mandatory, yet its unlike Joe Citizen particularly gets any training?? self-discipline? "properly regulated"?? no longer often. definitely, i think of the 2nd modification is in complication. The crux that's being attacked is the assumption of what constitutes a "protection rigidity". think of roughly it. the region we take care of now and what the founding fathers dealt with are quite diverse. decrease back then it develop into all extraordinarily obvious - Autonomy vs distant places rule. So the 2nd modification develop into written in that context. Now our government knows to squeeze it out persons a sprint at a time so we never be conscious or whinge too plenty. specific, there is an occasional guy who will fly his airplane into an IRS workplace... yet armed protection against the government is frequently a delusion. The Dem's will over-regulate you, the Republicans will set the firms loose to do what they're going to. i be attentive to, a sprint cynical. yet while we actually advise the 2nd to guard our rights to very own palms for their likely makes use of (protection of abode and kin, sport and searching) possibly it quite is strictly what the 2nd could say seeing it quite is unassailable.

Answer 8

It is an individual right, and the reason why the 2nd amendment speaks of the people's right is simple. When the Constitution was being debated, one of the fears the anti-federalists had was the power of Congress to keep a Standing Army. A Standing Army to many in early independent America reminded them of the King's Army, which was organized and kept standing in times of peace in the Colonies. The Standing Army was viewed as a threat to liberty. With this in mind, the 2nd amendment was drafted, as a means to keep Congress from funding a Standing Army, and instead have Congress rely on State militias composed of the people. Therefore, it was the People's right to keep and bear arms in order to participate in the militia.

Answer 9

Liberal leaders (dicators in waiting) want to disarm america and nationalize everything. For examples of where this leads see: Hitler, Stalin, Chavez.

Liberal followers (the liberal idiots) think that this is a great idea because they can get more free stuff. Little do they know that they are signing up for slavery in thier socialist utopia.

Cheers!

Answer 10

I am glad you have raised this question on a public website. It is limited by government because the people allow it to happen. Just as there is no law requiring hard working Americans to pay taxes. I would suggest that you read makethestand.com.