2nd Amendment Question, Regarding the Supreme Court's Ruling.?

Question

I'd like to provoke some thoughtful answers to this question, so please put some actual thought into your contribution.

When the second amendment was written, handguns did not exist. The only types of guns were rifles, and were to be carried by militias in case of a time of war.

These rifles weren't very powerful, (at least compared to guns these days), and took a very long time to reload. This made them relatively harmless to civilian life, as a shooter could be apprehended before he got off a second shot.

So with the guns that are prolific on the streets today, doesn't it make sense to change that amendment somehow? At the very least to ban the civilian ownership of automatic weapons and other arms that could do a much greater amount of damage then the Founding Fathers ever considered?

Answer 1

Go ahead and take the 2nd amendment away.  Speech is also dangerous sometimes more so than a weapon.  Lets take that next.  See a pattern arising here Scully?

Answer 2

Not at all. Your points only reenforce the importance. The firearms of the day had no distinctions between civilian and military rifles. The people had the same guns as the soldiers When called upon, they could march on out and be counted on to fight a war. When the Founders wrote out this bill they expected the public to have the same guns as the military. We've lost sight of that goal. And from your comment on banning fully automatic firearms, that falls under a category of weapon called Class Three. The process to get a Class 3 permit is so stringent and full of red tape that few people actually get any. If you do get a permit, the ATF is given the right to search your home at any time without a warrant. Its clear you don't own a gun. If you did, you'd understand that illegal guns are the problem.  In California I can't even buy a semi-automatic firearm because of the crazy laws here. I travel to the east side of Palmdale and gangbangers have uzis and MAC 10's. They don't follow the law. I do.  The premise of the 2nd Amendment is that an adequately armed populace can protect the nation in a time of war. By having lawful citizens well-armed we can take on the gangs and the criminals. That is why we fight for our rights. If they ever take away my liberty, I'll die fighting it. Or I'll go move to a free society. Maybe Iran or Russia will look better then.

Its not a question of necessity, its a question of right. Do you need to protest Iraq? No not really, but should we take that right away? In the same way, while an AK 47 isn't essential to defend against a robber, it is for other things. Like protecting against an invasion. Or the really bad gangs. You use what you know and what you like. All options should be on the table. Personally, I'm fine with a Mosin Nagant M44. That fits my needs. I can still kill any bad guy with it, and I know how to use it. But others, like ex-military guys, they know M16's or M249's. They should have the right to use what they know. Who are we to judge what rights Americans are to receive? Thats just plain un-American.

Answer 3

Looks like someone needs to read and study up on the requirements someone must meet to own an automatic firearm.  Not just anyone can own automatic firearms.   The 10 most traced firearms used in crimes (in 1994, so its a little dated, but it will give you an idea) are as follows:

1 Lorcin P25 .25  Pistol

2 Davis Industries P380 380A Pistol

3 Raven Arms MP25 .25 Pistol

4 Lorcin L25 .25 Pistol

5 Mossburg 500 12G Shotgun

6 Phoenix Arms Raven .25 Pistol  

7 Jennings J22 .22 Pistol  

8 Ruger P89 9 mm Pistol  

9 Glock 17 9 mm Pistol  

10 Bryco

There is not a single automatic firearm on this list.  With the exception of the Ruger, Glock, and the Mossberg shotgun, the other firearms listed are cheap, poorly made (and even worse functioning) handguns.  Most of them can be purchased for a little over $100 (even cheaper if illegally purchased off the street).

I'd like to suggest that anyone who questions whether guns should be banned and what type of guns should be banned do research and read up a little.  Find a copy of "Unintended Consequences" by James Ross and read it, and see if you still feel that guns should be banned!!!  With out the 2nd Amendment, the other amendments will slowly but surely become null and void!!!

Answer 4

I understand your concern about gun violence on the streets of some cities here in the United States, but a change in the 2nd amendment would not have any effect on reducing the amount of fire arms in the hands of criminals. Bad guys do not pay attention to the laws of the land. That's why they are bad guys.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people of the nation the ability to defend themselves against the government. If you limit the ability of the population to have weapons, the government can do anything it wants with no fear of reprisal from the people. Look at any country that had the misfortune to be under a Communist regime. Firearms were strictly controlled. Only the military and police force could legally pocess them. It is very easy for a government to force its will on an unarmed group, but a nation that allows an armed civilians becomes less controlable through force.

The capability of the weapons becomes less of an issue when looked at in this light. A citizen armed with a flint lock rifle would have little chance against a soldier armed with an automatic rifle. Civilians need to have access to modern fire arms or the 2nd amendment has no importance.

The real answer to the gun crime issue is not to limit access to fire amrs, but to encourage normal citizens to arm themselves. In our nations history, when the population was armed, gun crime was at it's lowest. As we have made it more difficult to own or carry a gun, we have encouraged gun crime and violence.

I am not saying fully automatic machine guns should be legal for everyone to own, but I am not saying they should not be.  I am saying that it does not matter. Bad guys will still get them and use them.

Answer 5

Your liberal aren't you? There is no reason to change the 2nd Amendment.  If you put a ban on certain firearms then it only hurts the law abiding citizens, the people who break the law will still get the guns they want no matter what.

Answer 6

There were pistols in the 1700s...

"The first pistols were made as early as the 15th century, however the creator is unknown"

Also a pistol is not as dangerous as a rifle. The only advantage a pistol has is its ability to be concealed and weight. It is not a better gun then a rifle, which is why we give soldiers rifles.

You move from pistols to "automatic weapons" and greater damage then the founding fathers considered. What is greater damage? Any gun that is more then one shot?

The second amendment is there to keep the power in the hands of the individual. Limiting them to a single shot 300 year old gun doesn't do that. It makes them helpless.

Answer 7

The second amendment was written by revolutionaries who had just overthrown the biggest superpower in the world at the time. Although the rifles were slow, they were the same rifles the British military was using. Also, Kentucky 'Long rifles' or hunting rifles actually had superior range to the standard military issue rifle. The second amendment was put in place to keep the population armed, and the government honest. A citizenry armed as well as the military cannot be repressed and denied freedoms. This is what I believe the founding fathers intended the second amendment to be, a check against the abuse of power. To have this check be effective, The populace has to be able to have the best weapons available, both handguns,and rifles. Also, your point is flawed because handguns did exist.

Answer 8

The average pistol took about 20 seconds to re-load. However, many people back then carried three or four of them to make up for this. And, usually these people were taken care of by others with guns who shot them.

But the power of the weapons in question has absolutely nothing to do with what the founding fathers were talking about. They were asserting the inherent right of the poeple to defend themselves, whether collectively against as common enemy, or individually.  

John Adams wrote, "Arms in the hands of the poeple may be used for the defense of the country, for the overthrow of tyrrany, or in private self-defense."

The founding father intended the 2nd Amendment to guarantee Americans' right to carry weapons for their own lawful purposes. It wasn't just for guns: it was for all weapons: guns, knives, swords, spears, hatchets, etc. Why? because they knew that an armed society is a polite society.

Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The greatest the we can hope for the people at large is that they be properly armed."

The point is, if the government makes guns illegal to own, carry, or purchase, then it doesn't solve gun crime. Criminals, by nature break the law. They're not going to stop using guns just because a new law was passed: it hasn't happened before. When the government made marijuana illegal, did it stop people from getting and smoking weed? Not at all. The same thing happens with guns. In fact, the only ones who now will be deprived of guns will be the law abiding citizens. Now what happens? Criminals have guns, and civilians don't. Civilians have just become easy targets for armed criminals. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes, they make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." I think we need to listen to the words of the founding fathers, and return to our common sense.

Besides, aren't criminals found carrying machine guns all the time? Didn't the mob use tommy guns? Aren't inner city gang members found with uzzies and tech-9's? There are already bans on these weapons, and criminals still have them? So why shouldn't we, the law-abiding citizens of America, be able to own them? are we suddenly going to go on a shooting spree?

Answer 9

The constitution is fine the way it is. Leave the 2nd amendment alone.

Answer 10

From my understanding, automatic weapons are usually severely restricted, and IMO rightfully so.  I also would have no problem, personally, with restircting mortars, howitzers, etc.

As far as handguns not existing... I believe you're wrong there.  Off the top of my head, I recall that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr fought with duelling pistols a mere 15 years after the ratification of the Constitution.  I'm pretty sure handguns had been around for some time.

Answer 11

First of all...handguns DID exist.  Muzzleload pistols were used in the French-Indian wars as well as the American Revolution.  In fact, the earliest pistols were made in Italy in the 16th century.

Is the gun responsible for shooting a person, or is another person?  If you can prove to me beyond any doubt that a gun DELIBERATELY loaded itself, aimed itself at a human being, pulled its own trigger and killed that said human being, then I'll be in favor of gun control.  Until such a time, it is the operator of a gun that is the problem, not the gun.

If I use all those guns legally, safely, and prevent their misuse, what harm has come to you?  You might not see the harm in punishing me, a responsible gun owner, for the actions of others, but it really befuddles me that people don't want to understand that is what happens when you pass gun control laws without punishing the criminals who use them illegally.

Answer 12

I think that the Framers meant that the people (in order to keep a well maintained militia) needed their right to keep guns to protect themselves from a government that overstepped it's constitutional bounds.  The old flintlock and muzzle loading rifles of the day were good enough to defend against other like rifles.  Now the military and the like have high powered rifles and new technology, and in order to defend ourselves against the possibility of the government overstepping it's bounds, we need the right to access equal technology.  But the 2nd Amendment doesn't say specify that the right to bear arms is only for the militia.  It says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.