Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kenny Howse on February 1, 2012 at 3:45pm

The 2nd Amendment states - "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."  To me this has always meant that there may be a necessity for normal everyday people to take up arms in defence of the country as members of the militia.  I do not believe it was the intention of the founding fathers that weapons should be freely available to all and sundry to carry on their person as and when they choose without let or hindrance!  But then again I'm a brit so what do I know?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on February 1, 2012 at 3:57pm

As a U.S, citizen I read it the same way. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sway austin on February 2, 2012 at 3:55pm

I third that.

:)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared on February 2, 2012 at 6:07pm

 Basically the way I see it is that owning firearms has been part of the American culture from the very start and should remain so. Now I'm not saying people should have rocket launchers or the like or that someone who is obviously mentally ill should be allowed to own firearms but the idea of banning or severely infringing the ability of the people to bear arms doesn't mesh with the ideals of individual freedoms that this representative republic is supposed to be based on. The very start of this nation relied heavily on the idea of the individual having the right to defend themselves, family, or property. There was much debate while the bill of rights was being written about the second amendment right down to which exact words would be used. The addition of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" was included to be sure that it would be very difficult to justify restricting the right of ownership to a select few which helps ensure the ability to form a people's militia and also allows the individual right to own firearms. It's very doubtful that the bill of rights would have been accepted by the majority of the states or their citizens had there not been any protections spelled out for the public's right to be armed. Of course there were more concerns in that time with much of the country being the frontier and due to the lack of strong government or authorities to protect its citizens. However there was also a great distrust of the government being that the people had just fought a war with their former government and this message of not trusting the government to be the only protector of your life or property has been passed along as general wisdom for generations. When it comes down to it the general idea in the United States is that your home or your little parcel of land is your castle and you have the right to protect it. Of course I don't see the problem with encouraging smart ownership habits and I agree there should be more reprecussions for improper or violent actions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Brown on February 1, 2012 at 3:54pm

I agree. I think that the original intention was for members of a civilian militia, however multiple court rulings have allowed the general population the right to carry guns. As a hunter, I am in favor of responsible possession of guns, but I do not mind thoughtful gun control such as banning assault and fully automatic rifles which have no practical purpose in general society.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenny Howse on February 1, 2012 at 4:17pm

Totally agree with that!  Proper hunting weapons should be available with proper licensing for hunters as long as they are held and kept safely and responsibly. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on February 1, 2012 at 3:56pm

The first clause is a justification for the primary clause.  If one does not have weapons, how can they take them up to defend, not just against enemies of the State, but the State itself if it should become the enemy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by xi on February 1, 2012 at 4:09pm

its one of the worst written amendments in the constitution, almost like a puzzle for a 140 character tweet..."how much can we pack in there...." that being said....i consider the amendment to allow for both well regulated militia's to be formed and that the rights of the people to keep AND bear arms cannot be challenged. while i think restrictions in modern society for some of the more clever devices in this category...i do not read it as clauses that qualify each other...hard to see how it does. i voted yes, i do not oppose gun control, but it should have limits too. mostly to show a reasonable restriction of weapons that does not conflict with the words above. aka to keep and bear arms...if you cant pick up a howitzer, you shouldn't have the inalienable right to own and operate one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Anna Rivers on February 1, 2012 at 4:18pm

I think it's a little outdated, sure, it had its use when new settlers came to America and had to be able to rely on themselves to protect their family. Nowadays we have the police that's supposed to be able to deal with issues like that. This "privilege" is so ingrained in people's minds, however, that I think there will always be an issue in the US. In Germany, where I'm from, most people don't own a gun let alone carrying one around with them all the time. People that do own them are usually hunters, and hunting is not really a sport there either but a profession. I always wonder if the murder rate in the States has anything to do with how freely guns are available. Because it is easier to pull a trigger than to stab or or choke someone with your bare hands. That actually takes guts :P

Germany has one of the toughest laws concerning firearms and even knives can be illegal if they meet certain requirements. You have to apply for a "Waffenschein", which is a license for carrying a weapon. This has to be renewed every three years. They usually have restrictions on them and you are only allowed to use the weapon for certain activities and if you were to be caught with it somewhere else you'd be in trouble. 

In order to be even eligible, you have to have a distinct need that requires you to have a weapon (just saying you feel you need to protect your life and that of your family isn't enough), you can't have any prior arrest record (unless it was under 60 days or a monetary fee), you need to have a secure place to store your weapon, be at least 18, not be addicted to drugs or alcohol, not be mentally ill, and you have to take a class where you learn how to handle weapons securely and take a test in the end which you have to pass.

So I think it would be useful to take a closer look at people's lives and psyche before they can fill out a form and answer no to all the questions and then just take home a rifle like they're shopping for groceries. But that's just my European mindset I guess :P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenny Howse on February 1, 2012 at 5:18pm

I like it!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on February 1, 2012 at 5:25pm

I think it's a little outdated, sure, it had its use when new settlers came to America and had to be able to rely on themselves to protect their family. Nowadays we have the police that's supposed to be able to deal with issues like that.

Admittedly, my understanding of the history behind this amendment is not the strongest, but my general understanding is that its purpose was to afford people the means of resisting potentially tyrannical government in the form of a constitutional guarantee.  It had to do with balancing the power between a standing federal army, and militias of the people.  Something like that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on February 1, 2012 at 9:35pm

This is almost exactly how it is in New Zealand.

 

We do, however, have a widespread culture of respectful firearm ownership - rather than the fear-based culture that seems to pervade American firearm ownership.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page