Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Was the second amendment put in place to protect citizens in case all the deer rise up in retaliation?

Since all the pro gun control people seem to think the second amendment is just for us to have the right to hunt then shouldn't we at least keep our firearms in case all the big game animals decide to unite and launch an armed insurrection against the American citizens?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I admit the ridiculous NRA, where I am a life member, insists on placating politicians and supporting majority members interested in firearms as sports equipment. However, the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights anti-Federalist farmers and tradesmen demanded refers to military weapons needed to keep government under our control.

    Governments always want to dominate. That's why anti-Federalist farmers and tradesmen insured we had the means to resist government sponsored by the Federalist Party bankers and merchants inclined to control it.

    The anti-Federalists were rejecting the new young "well regulated [meaning fully trained and equipped]" militia the Federalists wanted for protecting their businesses from rebellions like Shays's had been against Massachusetts banks. They finally accepted it after Federalist leader Hamilton convinced them it could be used to fight a federal army sent to dominate states.

    The anti-Federalists specified it to do that in the Bill of Rights they demanded and also registered other citizens' right to military weapons for fighting with or against that new young, easily indoctrinated militia we now call the National Guard.

    PS to Diane and others: Interpreting it from today's PC fairy tale delusions is also not valid. Read the actual history in the context of the battle between Federalists and anti-Federalists, not in the context of just the Federalist position against which the Bill of Rights was demanded. Bigoted "historians" have been inclined to present it only from the position held by Federalist opponents of the Bill of Rights authors.

    Source(s): See Federalist Paper No. 29 paying close attention to the anti-Federalist "republican" (later forming what is now the Democratic Party) concerns Hamilton the author ridicules there. All the concerns Hamilton ridicules have been realized since. For decades I studied philosophies, cultures, and social institutions. I began that because of confusion resulting from my military experience under the shadow of neo-Marxist anti-military and anti-capitalism indoctrination in the universities. I continue a forty year quest wading through the huge pile of stinking crap a wide variety of bigots dumped on top of truth hiding it from nearly everyone's view. The pile was made by blaming people they don't like while excusing people they do like regardless of where the fault really lies.
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    needless to say. The bill of Rights become enacted in a time while a properly-prepared defense force wasn't extensively much less useful than a countrywide defense force of similar length. The contemporary warfare, after all, become fought quite often between a defense force and an imperial military, with the defense force popping out triumphant. the 2nd modification secure the technique of this variety of defense force to type lower back, might desire to the will upward push up. however the Founders did no longer assume the form of warfare machines able to killing hundreds of thousands with the push of a button, and costing greater advantageous than the existence earning of hundreds of general human beings apiece. there become no Colonial-era equivalent to an F-15, or a nuclear submarine, or an ICBM - and not even the main ardent "authentic to bear palms" type thinks that persons might desire to have the means to purchase and administration those issues. So the 2nd modification has in actuality fallen from an substantial element of our gadget of exams and balances to a very formalized secure practices of searching and shooting hobbyists, basically Constitutionally retaining your authentic to bag some interest on the weekend or shop a Glock on your nightstand to experience complicated. it is no longer useful interior the comparable way it become written to be. That being reported, the fashionable argument is, might desire to we be eagerly snuffing out somebody rights that at the instant are not substantial interior the comparable way they was? might desire to our default place on guy or woman freedom be, "if it is no longer mandatory to the operation of the government, we'd desire to continually have as few freedoms as a threat?"

  • TomB
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Actually it was put in place because originally we were only going to have a standing Navy (and their amphibious force, ie. the Marines) to keep commerce flowing. The Army was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" (think Minute Men or a reserve force). Since we have a standing Army, the whole Militia argument is kind of a moot point.

    Source(s): USN(ret) and History Books...read one.
  • 8 years ago

    You hunt deer with a 50 bullet clip? Get a new hobby, 'cause you ain't very good at hunting.

    This is another false comparison from the Right. Reasonable restriction of some classes of guns still leaves a TON of options fr hunting, protection, target shooting, etc. Try again.

  • 8 years ago

    No. It was put in place to protect the citizens against tyranny. Unfortunately, that was in a time when the most powerful weapon that a government had was a cannon. It is no longer relevant for that purpose in view of M1 tanks, jet fighters, etc.

  • Arnie
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Our right to defend ourselves

    Making something against the law will not always prevent it's use

    Drugs and drunk driving have been against the law for years and that does not help.

    Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help..

    Isn't it better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!

    A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    If the Founding Fathers were here today, what do you think they'd say about the intention behind the Second Amendment?

    I don't think they would say that they meant it to apply to today's automatic weapons for one.

    I don't think they would think it was an individuals right to kill another to settle a disagreement.

    I think they would say that it was intended as the right to self defense in the days of the Wild Wild West where you could be days away from civilization or police. It has little place in today's organized society.

    It would have been just as difficult for the Founding Fathers to foresee the future as it is for us today to imagine what our world will be like in 200 years. If they were here today, they would certainly draft the Constitution in the context of today. That is what we have to keep in mind as well: the intention of the Constitution to create a safe and just society for all.

    Interpreting texts literally, without analysis and without flexibility has been the basis of fundamentalist movements worldwide, including the Crusades and todays Muslim fundamentalism. It is that inability or unwillingness to think critically, analytically, this lack of intellectual flexibility, that causes people to act irrationally, often assuming that they have the "natural" right to bear arms (There is nothing "natural" about firearms!) and kill masses of people who don't think like they do. Quite obviously, the Second Amendment was never meant to accommodate that line of thinking.

  • 8 years ago

    The right to own a gun is not something the government can give or take away. The Constitution clearly states it is a natural right.

  • 8 years ago

    its just like the laws that america still retains, its from the colonial era when it was mandatory to carry a fire arm. it was to protect peoples rights and unfortunately your gun laws and regulations are so relaxed that you can walk into a shop and purchase a weapon with relative ease. to be perfectly honest the whole american infrastructure is out-dated since it still carries many of the laws that we (the british) set in place. america needs to learn to progress and protect its people else the massacres and atrocities that have occurred will continue forever more

  • I've also heard a fair number of them say that the 2nd Amendment is outdated.

    I don't agree, but you have to characterize their words accurately.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.