This is why the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment are vital to America Agree or disagree?
- History_101Lv 47 years agoFavorite Answer
The Second Amendment serves two interests: a tool for State militias and self defense. In the Colonial Period, several Colonies enacted laws that required every able body qualified male to possess at all times, a musket and everything necessary to fire it. These weapons were not public property nor issued by the Colonies. When the militia was called up; qualified persons were required to muster with their own musket and equipment. Besides service in the militia which was a civic duty; the Frontier contained many dangers from wild animals, criminals and angry Native Americans. Thus, according to Cesare Beccaria (treatise on Crimes and Punishments), John Locke (Two Treatises on Civil Government), Sir William Blackstone (Commentaries); the Colonist were entitled to protection. And even more so during the Pre-Colonial period which was governed by Theocracies which dealt severely with crime and recidivism. A second conviction sometimes meant banishment which subjected the accused to self protection in the wilderness. Law enforcement was scant at best which often provided no salaries and cause those persons to rely upon fines for wages. So how can anyone purport that if a musket is kept in the home; that its' sole purpose is for service in the State militias? The Supreme Court of the United States is comprise of highly qualified persons who have addressed the Second Amendment AND have found based upon interpretations of Blackstone commentaries that the right to self defense predated the Constitution. Moreover, it is an inalienable right. Justice Taney, in Scott v. Sanford (1857) described rights that belonged to white citizens including the "constitutional right to keep and bear arms" since Negroes were not citizens even contemplated by the Founders. Congress answered in the Freedmen Bureau Bill of 1866 and specifically gave Freedman the 'constitutional' right to bear arms before it granted them civil rights by statute. In United States v. Cruikshank (1857), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not create a right; it protected a preexisting right. The Court reinterated its' interpretation of Cruikshank again in Pressor v. Illinois (1876). Too many people focus on United States v. Miller (1939) and the evolution of the collective rights view. The Court did not sanction the States' right view; it only referenced that shotguns were not used by the military to be protected under the Second Amendment. Again in Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), the same year Congress enacted the Gun Control Act (1938), the Court referenced the Second Amendment as a personal right. How can that equate to a collective rights view solely for the purpose to possess arms for militias? The Supreme Court has ruled: the Second Amendment protects a pre-codified right to keep and bear arms for protection of hearth and home by law-abiding citizens (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)) and applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment (City of Chicago v. MacDonald (2010)). At some point laypersons should stop pretending to be scholars because it bites my a** and pisses those of off that paid good money for a quality education at and beyond the undergraduate level.
- Uncle PennybagsLv 77 years ago
I'm a huge pro-gunner, but I disagree with your premise. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting freedom, not self defense.
Self-defense is more of a 9th Amendment right.
- BflowingLv 77 years ago
I am not against handguns being kept for self defense, but for every instance above, how many gun accidents involving family members are there?