posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:44 AM
I think this is being blown out of proportion.
No, i'm not American, but that is no reason to write me off...
The Second Amendment has always been contested, as to whether or not the right to bear arms pertains to the average citizen or civilian militias. The
majority believe that the 2nd Amendment covers the individual's right to bear arms, but many also forget that the amendment pertained to 'well
regulated militias'. There was no statement made about an individual's right to bear arms, but rather the people's right. Now as to whether or not
those people must be apart of a militia is something which is still unclear today.
"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
I quote the following from Academia.edu:
According to a 2003 Gallup/NCC poll, most Americans believe that the Second Amendment protects individual firearm ownership. Points in their
• A clear majority of the Founding Fathers unquestionably believed in a universalright to bear arms.
• The last time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the civilian militiainterpretation of the Second Amendment was 1939–almost 70 years ago, at a
timewhen policies enforcing racial segregation, banning birth control, and mandatingrecital of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools were also
• The Constitution is a document, not a piece of software.
Regardless of why the Second Amendment justifies its own existence, the fact remains that it stillexists as part of the Constitution.
• The Eighteenth Amendment established Prohibition; the Twenty-FirstAmendment overturned it. The American people have the means, through
thelegislative process, to overturn the Second Amendment if it is no longer considered worthwhile. If it’s obsolete, why hasn’t this happened?
• The Constitution aside, bearing arms is a fundamental human right. It is the onlymeans the American people have to reclaim control of their
government, should itone day become irredeemably corrupt.
The same Gallup/NCC poll cited above also found that 28% of respondents believe that the Second Amendment was created to protect civilian militias,
and does not guarantee the right to bear arms. Points in their favor:
• While the Founding Fathers may have supported the ownership of slow,expensive powder-loaded rifles, it’s doubtful that they would have been able
to conceive of shotguns, assault rifles, handguns, and other contemporary weaponry.
• The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment,
U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns.
The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation,and it has not spoken since. If the Court has
held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.
• The Second Amendment makes no sense without the prospect of civilian militias,as it is clearly a propositional statement.
• If you really want to overthrow the government, bearing arms probably isn’t enough. You’d need aircraft to take the skies, hundreds of tanks
to defeat ground forces, and a full navy. The only way to reform a powerful government in this dayand age is through nonviolent means.
• What the majority of Americans believe about the Second Amendment is unsurprising, because
Americans have been misinformed about what the Second Amendment accomplishes and how federal courts have traditionally interpreted it.
Put simply, the same article states that:
The individual rights interpretation reflects the view of the majority of Americans, and more clearly reflects the philosophical underpinnings
provided by the Founding Fathers, but the civilian militia interpretation reflects the views of the Supreme Court and seems to be a more precise
reading of the text of the Second Amendment.
edit on 17-4-2014 by daaskapital because: sp