Post by Sheila on Mar 25, 2024 15:15:13 GMT -5
Amendment 2: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This right to keep and bear arms has been attacked over the past ten or twenty years more than it ever has been before. There are so many arguments against what it states, it's probably easiest to go through it piece by piece to explain what it means and the arguments against it.
"A well regulated Militia": At the time the Constitution was written, what became the United States didn't have a full time army. Each man was expected to answer the call to duty and bring his own weapons. This volunteer army could probably be viewed as the precursor to the Army National Guard. The weapons these men brought to war were used for hunting and protection at all other times. The people who argue against the ownership and use of high-powered rifles, semi-automatic pistols, etc will state we have a National Guard, so those weapons aren't needed. If their argument has any merit, then their bodyguards, the police, and any private security would not be part of the militia and should also be banned from carrying any type of firearm except for a musket.
"being necessary for a free State": This line is a little tricky. The State can refer to the nation as a whole. People can own weapons in order to defend the country or part of the country. When more manpower than the police would be needed and the National Guard can't mobilize quickly enough, are the ordinary citizens supposed to defend a place against terrorists armed with machine guns with nothing more than muskets? The State also refers to a political unit such as a state, county, or city. The previous question needs to be answered about such a situation in these places. And believe it or not, the founding fathers also added this amendment so if the federal government were to ever overstep it's powers and become a dictatorship, the citizens could defend themselves against that government.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms": This part gives citizens the right to own firearms and also to carry them on their person. "Keep" means to own. "Bear" means to carry it with you. There are places in the United States where you can own a gun, but you're not allowed to keep it in your home (New York City for example). What good does it do to own a weapon for personal protection if you can't have it where it's easily acceptable? This infringes on the person's right to "bear" arms. Any laws prohibiting people from carrying a pistol or revolver in a holster, in a purse, etc also infringes upon the rights established within this amendment.
"shall not be infringed": The rights laid forth can't be changed or nullified by the government.
There are also stupid arguments put forth by the anti-gun crowd such as the one that says "the men who wrote the Constitution wouldn't have let people own bazookas". And they probably wouldn't have thought these rights applied to the cannons or early mortars that were present at that time in history. I've yet to hear any pro-gun advocates say all citizens should be allowed to own bazookas, rocket launchers, mortars, or any other large weapons so that argument makes no sense. The weapons for which ownership and the freedom to carry protected here, in my opinion, applies only to small arms - handguns, rifles, and shotguns.
Copyright © 2024 by Sheila Rae Myers
This right to keep and bear arms has been attacked over the past ten or twenty years more than it ever has been before. There are so many arguments against what it states, it's probably easiest to go through it piece by piece to explain what it means and the arguments against it.
"A well regulated Militia": At the time the Constitution was written, what became the United States didn't have a full time army. Each man was expected to answer the call to duty and bring his own weapons. This volunteer army could probably be viewed as the precursor to the Army National Guard. The weapons these men brought to war were used for hunting and protection at all other times. The people who argue against the ownership and use of high-powered rifles, semi-automatic pistols, etc will state we have a National Guard, so those weapons aren't needed. If their argument has any merit, then their bodyguards, the police, and any private security would not be part of the militia and should also be banned from carrying any type of firearm except for a musket.
"being necessary for a free State": This line is a little tricky. The State can refer to the nation as a whole. People can own weapons in order to defend the country or part of the country. When more manpower than the police would be needed and the National Guard can't mobilize quickly enough, are the ordinary citizens supposed to defend a place against terrorists armed with machine guns with nothing more than muskets? The State also refers to a political unit such as a state, county, or city. The previous question needs to be answered about such a situation in these places. And believe it or not, the founding fathers also added this amendment so if the federal government were to ever overstep it's powers and become a dictatorship, the citizens could defend themselves against that government.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms": This part gives citizens the right to own firearms and also to carry them on their person. "Keep" means to own. "Bear" means to carry it with you. There are places in the United States where you can own a gun, but you're not allowed to keep it in your home (New York City for example). What good does it do to own a weapon for personal protection if you can't have it where it's easily acceptable? This infringes on the person's right to "bear" arms. Any laws prohibiting people from carrying a pistol or revolver in a holster, in a purse, etc also infringes upon the rights established within this amendment.
"shall not be infringed": The rights laid forth can't be changed or nullified by the government.
There are also stupid arguments put forth by the anti-gun crowd such as the one that says "the men who wrote the Constitution wouldn't have let people own bazookas". And they probably wouldn't have thought these rights applied to the cannons or early mortars that were present at that time in history. I've yet to hear any pro-gun advocates say all citizens should be allowed to own bazookas, rocket launchers, mortars, or any other large weapons so that argument makes no sense. The weapons for which ownership and the freedom to carry protected here, in my opinion, applies only to small arms - handguns, rifles, and shotguns.
The ACLU states that "The right to own and use guns was not considered absolute or viewed as free from government regulation since firearms are inherently dangerous . . ". Except for anti-gun advocates, most Constitutional scholars would say Amendment 2 most certainly was intended as an absolute right and is free from regulation. Again, this applies to small arms. Also, those who are against gun ownership and want to make this amendment go away, are perfectly fine with their private security guards owning, carrying, and using small arms to protect them. They just don't want ordinary citizens to be able to protect themselves in the same way. The founding fathers allowed citizens to protect themselves with their own weapons and this wasn't restricted to only the rich and famous being able to do so. Any person at any level of the government who restricts or prohibits the ownership or bearing of arms is in violation of the Constitution.
I know there may be some people who disagree with what I've written. I'd like to hear what you have to say about why citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns or if you believe there should be some restrictions placed on the ownership and use of guns. When it comes to some restrictions, I may agree with you.
Copyright © 2024 by Sheila Rae Myers