My name Is Adam, I am very happy to join ATS. I have been reading a lot of threads for the past weeks and the issue of gun control seemed to be of interest. There is some question I would love to ask you regarding the 2nd amendment.

The U.S. Constitution has been validated and applied since 1789. One may wonder whether the famous second amendment on the carrying of weapons is still relevant in this country 200 years later. At the time, the United States was under construction geographically, politically and economically. For American citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms could have been relevant 200 years ago.

Sure I could post pictures of muskets and compare them to Uzis, Preach for self defense or feed you with statistics that validates or invalidates the right to bear arms. But let me ask you some questions instead.

“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 infringed.”(Constitution of the United States Of America, 2nd Amendment)

Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?


Proponents of the individualistic interpretation hold especially the second part of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." According to them, citizens have the right to arm themselves in a threefold purpose: to defend their property and their families, to preserve a possible tyrannical government and participate in the defense of the state against foreign aggression. But the proponents of the collective right are to make cheap limitation of the clause above. Insofar as there is talk of a militia, that is to say, in the language of the time, a reserve army, the right of the states to organize such a armed force that is recognized. It was to protect at the time of ratification, was the opportunity for each State to ensure its own defense without resorting to a professional federal army. And for them this invalidates the theory of the Second Amendment right to open a vigilante. In addition, the reference to a "free state" and its security does not allow the interpretation that citizens have the right to arm themselves to resist a government deemed too authoritarian.


Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?

United States v. Miller 1939, the supreme Court took a position that could not be more ambiguous. If it upholds the constitutionality of the federal law of 1934, it is for a reason that is not likely to set a law: the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the type of weapon involved in the case considered (a sawed-off shotgun), because it is not part of the usual weapons of a militia.

Question 3: Should we conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks if the times we live in makes it militia relevant weaponry?


What matters is not so strictly legal interpretation of the Second Amendment as its symbolic power. Because it is a valuable lever for those who are strongly opposed to any restrictions on arms, who build their argument on the quasi-religious devotion that the American society dedicates to the Constitution.

If our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would no doubt be members of a pro-gun group. That statement might sound rather wild ; but really, if one knows Colonial history, it’s not. Indeed, it is hard to overstate how much our Founding Fathers cherished the firearm.

Gottlieb.

What America needs is a moral revolution of massive proportions. Changed hearts and the restoration of traditional and stable families, combined with stricter law enforcement and a reversal of our revolving door justice system, could, over time, bring safety back to our streets.

LaPierre.

Twentieth-century Americans have rejected the principles of freedom of their ancestors. Believing that the socialist welfare state would provide them with a “safety net” of governmental security, they traded the liberty bequeathed to them by their ancestors for the paternalistic state. Thus, they adopted all the things to which their ancestors had said No: income taxation, welfare, regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, and gun control.

Hornberger.

It is clear that there is a gulf between the two ideological camps. Some defend a law eternal and intangible, others are alarmed by the social cost of it all. For some responsibility is individual, and the state must be limited to an arbiter, for others it is collective, and the State is entitled to implement a preventive policy. Which brings us back to question 1 but this time regarding the State policy.

Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American citizens?

The application of the Brady bill, the public outcry against the Columbine tragedy and mourning collective orchestrated by the media that ensued had some commentators suggest that in this struggle between the individual rights and public health, that the NRA had lost ground. In fact, nothing is less certain. Because if the NRA has never changed his creed, supporters of arms control had gradually reduce their claims to be closer to the point where the polls are the political center of gravity. The sympathy that each side can expect from the opinion may be eventually changed, but there is no evidence that the measures that will result will have the expected impact on gun violence.


Thank you for reading; I am grateful to everyone who took the time to read since it took me over 3 hours to write and prepare a decent thread. And hopefully, some will answer these questions


I am Glad to join the ATS family.

Well, I feel as though it's my right as a Human Being to arm myself with whatever I feel necessary to defend myself. Were it the age of swords would you be on the same bandwagon?

I don't trust my family nevermind trusting the government to protect me. They don't know me, they don't care.

Well, the first point to make is the 2nd Amendment itself is unambiguous, so there's little room for caveats. This means, to ban firearms outright, the Constitution would have to be changed or ammended, but I'm sure there's an ammendment against that also, as a 'safeguard' against rights being revoked. If the 2nd Amendment was altered or revoked for whatever reason, you have a dangerous precedent right off the bat.

So, the ownership and carrying of firearms might have been relevant some 200 years ago, but not today? Don't be so sure - conditions change. It might become highly relevant yet again at some point, if the country somehow finds itself at risk of becoming a dictatorship or another third-world country.

The final point is it wouldn't change a lot, if you wanted to control/ban firearms for the sake of making streets safer. In fact, the situation could be made far worse. The social problems themselves that lead to crime would still remain, and the 'bad actors' would simply resort to using other objects (knives, bottles, pint glasses, Uncle Stanley, etc. etc.) as weapons.

Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?

I would say it is to protect myself and family first. Then it is to protect us from the government.

i,m british and watched a program called the first 48,,,,,now the one i watched was some guy opening fire on a guy in a gas station cause he opened fire on him first........obviously he killed him and it was ok, thats cool u killed him cause he missed u......going to get ur british so u don,t understand but soz i don,t need to be british to see that if u ask me that theory is just nuts and thats why america is murder capital

About 20 years ago, my Mom was in an industrial district in Southern Dallas picking up supplies for my Dad's business. As she was leaving, two young men approached her vehicle and began beating on the driver-side window telling her to open the door. It was apparent they intended to "carjack" her. Instead, she opened her purse and whipped out a snub nose .38, pointed it at one of them and pulled back the hammer. They immediately ran off.

A gun saved my life. It saved my life from someone else with a gun would wanted to do me harm. Attempted home invasion. So the 2nd amendment saved my life, while at the same time, took someone else's. With out our 2nd amendment rights, we would'nt have any rights at all.

I have enough fire power to keep my family safe and put food on the table.

Yeah!

double post, see below

Citizens with guns not used for hunting are nothing more than targets for .... anyone else with a gun.

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
A gun saved my life. It saved my life from someone else with a gun would wanted to do me harm. Attempted home invasion. So the 2nd amendment saved my life, while at the same time, took someone else's. With out our 2nd amendment rights, we would'nt have any rights at all.

we don,t need them rights cause a gun incident in britain is rare......the reason its rare is we don,t have everyone running about with guns......seriously don,t get how uz don,t grasp that fact.

I was taught at a very young age how to shoot, and to respect a gun or any weapon. The gun itself doesn't kill, it's the person using it. Sure, there are some people who should not own a fun, but there are people who shouldn't drive a car either. ...havent you ever seen the bumper sticker" my gun has killed less people then Ted Kennedy's car" ....
But, we the people have the right to protect our family and property. And wether its an invasion from a foreign country or a home invasion from a burglar, I will be really happy at that moment that I have my sig sauer with a laser pointer and tric sighting on it!

we don,t need them rights cause a gun incident in britain is rare......the reason its rare is we don,t have everyone running about with guns......seriously don,t get how uz don,t grasp that fact.

Maybe so, but stabbings and glassings are quite common, and law-abiding people aren't carrying much to defend themselves, are they? And there's always the possibility of getting jumped by a group of attackers. On balance, I'd say the Yanks are better off in terms of crime rates, taking into account the differences in population.

Originally posted by AdamLaw
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people

It's all right there.
The security of a FREE STATE.
Not the federal government, not world opinion, not activistic dogma from self abasing control freaks who haven't the intestinal fortitude to depend on themselves and want government to level the playing field. A FREE STATE. That means free citizens.

The right OF THE PEOPLE.

Not the right of the Fed, FBI,CIA,DEA,Army,Navy Air Force Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard, Police, Marshals, Local or county Sherrif, Barney Freakin Fife or an entire legion of yellow gutted activists in the name of fairness, morality or simple minded cowardice.

The right of the PEOPLE ...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

We already have the right. It was ours before the first dot of ever ink went onto the bill of rights.

We never had it granted to us. It is ours by birth as humans to hold the tools to defend and provide for ourselves.

The amendment is simply intended to remind idiots, fools and would-be-tyrants that subduing a population before murdering a fair percentage of them will not happen.

Sound nutty? Read a bit of humanity's recent history. The first thing tyrants and terrorists do is to remove all guns from the hands of the citizens. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Kim il Sun, Pol Pot and a herd of others. They took away the guns in the name of security and then proceeded to kill millions. You think that humans have changed since then? Think again.


Aaaannnddd....welcome to ATS

Originally posted by Meldionne1
I was taught at a very young age how to shoot, and to respect a gun or any weapon. The gun itself doesn't kill, it's the person using it. Sure, there are some people who should not own a fun, but there are people who shouldn't drive a car either. ...havent you ever seen the bumper sticker" my gun has killed less people then Ted Kennedy's car" ....
But, we the people have the right to protect our family and property. And wether its an invasion from a foreign country or a home invasion from a burglar, I will be really happy at that moment that I have my sig sauer with a laser pointer and tric sighting on it!

no matter what anyone says uz aren,t going to grasp the fact that the law to bear arms is causing 80-90% of murders in ur country,no guns then less killing....its not rocket science

More people die every day by car accidents and drunk drivers vs guns. Want to get rid of all cars too?

no matter what anyone says uz aren,t going to grasp the fact that the law to bear arms is causing 80-90% of murders in ur country,no guns then less killing....its not rocket science

Evidence for both statements?

seriously ur saying its cool cause we mite have a few glassings or whatever compared to people getting shot?soz americans but we have complete idiots over here 2.

In a way, yes. If an attack is prevented because the attacker was aware the potential victim is armed, it's cool. The point is one of two things could happen if firearms were banned ouright in the US: an increase in violent crime, or attackers resorting to other forms of weaponry. Pretty logical.