Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 8 years ago

What is your take on the Second Amendment?

I believe that it is the right of all American citizens to own and bear arms, and that this right is guaranteed in the United States’ Constitution.

Let me read to you the words as they are presented in our constitution: “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 cannot be any clearer than this, and yet, many people want to make laws in clear violation of the United States’ constitution, the document on which our very nation is founded.

I. Pros of gun control

A. Advocates argue that gun control curbs access by criminals, juveniles, and other such "high-risk" individuals. They argue that only federal measures can successfully reduce the accessibility of guns. Some seek broad policy changes such as near-prohibition of non-police firearm ownership or the registration of all firearms or handguns. They positively assert that there is no constitutional barrier to such measures and no significant social costs. Others advocate less comprehensive policies that they maintain would not impede handgun ownership and legitimate firearm transfers.

B. Crime and mortality statistics are also very often used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14 to 24 year-old age decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999. Firearm fatalities from all causes and for all age groups decreased by 22%.

II. Reasons against gun control.

A. Gun control advocates claim that the introductory clause "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" alters the meaning of the main clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to such an extent that it should be seen as having no effect on governmental action at all. This is ridiculous, and completely irrelevant, as the formulation of the second amendment was quite commonplace at that time. It was meant to limit the government by keeping the option of a citizen-army open to every state, if such drastic action ever needed to happen.

B. Here are some more reasons against gun control. I hope you can see the humor in this.

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a 357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Quote from the Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, published in 1981.)

10. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787 refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

11. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

12. These phrases "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

13. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

14. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, our army has hundreds of thousands of them.

15. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

16. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

17. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

18. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

19. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an assault weapon.

What's your take?

7 Answers

  • tom
    Lv 6
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Well the second amendment prevents the US federal govt (and now states) from preventing individuals from owning weapons (keep) and being in the militia (bear).

    The term bear arms never has meant "carry arms" this is just something someone seems to have made up that was popular.

    This shows that the founders used the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service".

    There is so much evidence to point to bear arms meaning a right to be in the militia and hardly anything to suggest it means carry. In fact the Supreme Court have upheld in Heller that "bear arms" does not mean carry!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    "10. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787 refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917."

    Actually the 2nd Amendment did consider the National Guard, the Founders were very Intelligent and forward looking. The National Guard is what is known as a 'Select Militia', and was part of what the 2nd is to protect against.

    John Smilie;

    "Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army--or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there will be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed."

    General Richard Henry Lee;

    "The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. ...All regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided."

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Many of the disagreements about the second amendment are due to different interpretations of the term "well-regulated." Opponents of gun control tend to ignore this term. Proponents of gun control may want to regulate guns excessively.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago


    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Any attempt to repeal the second amendment would be one of the fastest ways I know to start a revolution in this country. The other would be Bev Perdue's advice to "suspend elections".

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Very well put!!!!

    If you have not read More Guns Less Crime by John Lott you should.

    It wil give you verified research to back up your opinions.

    Plus it will give a great laugh when you read the attempts to discredit his findings.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Helios
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Well... not really - but I doubt if you'd be convinced by any actual arguments.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.