People say that gun control is unconstitutional, but are they really thinking? When the amendment that gave the right to bare arms was written, guns were much different. The founding fathers were thinking of one-shot-per-minute muskets, not fully automatic AK-47s! How could they have guessed how easy it would be for criminals today to go out and kill 15 people?
The right to bear arms refers to a well regulated militia, not every citizens write to own an assault rifle. The framers could not have possibly anticipated the weapons we would have at our disposal. Limiting what types and how many guns citizens can own is necessary for public safety. We need stricter gun control laws, and we need them now.
Maybe those "gun rights advocates" should actually read the second amendment instead of just skimming to the words they like to hear. Here is what it actually says, "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."
Besides when they say that gun control is facist they should do their research more, because when Hitler built up his army and Germany for that matter he need weapons to do so and the only people who could own a gun were Germans and people called the "Aryans"; Jews couldn't own weapons and neither could anyone who was occupied by the Nazis.
The constitution says "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". Most are no where near a well regulated militia. Since most conveniently forget that part only seeing the part where it says the "Right of the People" we're stuck with the people who swear even the most violent and mentally disturbed people deserve a gun because it's their constitutional freedom. A question has yet to be asked, where does your freedom end? The answer is simple, when it infringes upon another's freedom. I like to think it's in everyone's right to be able to walk down the street and not get shot.
The second amendment states that the people have the right to bear arms. This means we can legally own firearms. This does not mean that you can walk down the street with an illegal firearm like an assault rifle. The purpose of the second amendment was to give the people a means of protecting themselves against the government if it every became tyrannical, like what we are see today. The founding fathers knew about this and prepared, which is why it is in the Bill of Rights! This is so the government can not change this because it is our NATURAL BORN RIGHT! For example the first thing Hitler did was CREATE GUN CONTROL, TAKE AWAY GUNS, THEN ARRESSTED THOSE WITH GUNS. Then after all that he started the Holocaust and taking over Europe. Also gun control will only hurt us because those who wish to see America destroyed and those who are getting illegal fire arms WILL STILL GET THEM ILLEGALLY. While us citizens will become defenseless do to a tyrannical government which is what we will become if we give the government any more power!
Nothing in the 2nd amendment says anything that restricts the governments ability to legally control access to arms. (Note the term legally). The 2nd amendment term "infringe", by definition means to "not illegally block". Nothing illegal has happening when the government is limiting access to arms. One step more, there is nothing limiting the governments ability to control which arms are permitted and which are not, nothing in the 2nd amendment and nothing since.
Just because the second amendment says we have the right to bear arms does not mean that there cannot be rules and regulations that should make the citizens of this country safer. When the Constitution was written, the authors had no idea what kind of world we would eventually live in and what kinds of problems that amendment would cause. I think the right to live without fear of being shot by any person who was able to legally buy a gun should outweigh the right for any person to buy a gun as easily as a gallon of milk.
Gun Control laws do seem to go against the constitution. The second amendment to the constitution is the right to bare arms. This means that, if qualified to do so, a person can have and carry a firearm. Is it smart to control gun laws? Yes. A lot of bad things can be avoided by doing so.
It no longer applies to modern times in a variety of ways. It is coming in the near future. The kids today will use common sense and fix it when it's their turn to be in power. Furthermore, whether or not new guns laws happen, soon the firearms of today will become obsolete. I think the buck stops here. What we are allowed access to right now will NEVER be upgraded and future weapons will never be accessible to the public. If you actually feel like you are keeping the government in check with your AR-15, you are pretty funny.
We have plenty of gun laws right now, restrictions on who can by what kind of gun and where they can carry it - no one's challenging those laws or says they're unconstitutional. None of the congressmen opposed to the new law are claiming it either afaik. I came here hoping to find any evidence that they were unconstitutional, but all I see in the "no" side is: "gun control is unconstitutional because the 2nd says we have the right to bear arms", a blanket assumption that any amount of control equals a ban, and that any kind of control, even a check to see if you're insane, is expressly forbidden by the amendment.
That's why we need to repeal the Second Amendment, as it serves no purpose but to be a loophole for the NRA and the gun groups to use for their own personal gain. At the moment, gun control is unconstitutional. But it shouldn't be. The Second Amendment is exactly what it says, an AMENDMENT. The constitution can be changed, as that's how it was designed.
The 2nd Amendment was written to posses weapons of war, rifles equal to the federal standing army. (Madison Federalist Paper 46). The whole intent is to prevent and resist if necessary against any tyrannical government including our own. And by the way a well regulated militia was one made of private citizens. This meaning not only do we have the right to bear arms but also to form a group of trained citizens able to protect individual liberty without government interference.
It's not even that it's unconstitutional at this point, but it will be soon enough. The liberals are going to rise to power even more so than now, and once they have this massive amount of power, they'll disarm the whole world. You should just be able to walk into a gun store and buy one, like in the old days; so long as you don't have a violent criminal record.
By banning guns it goes against the Second Amendment of the right to bear arms. Guns are security for people to have for their protection. This is a freedom that Americans have acquired over time, but by banning guns it takes that freedom away, and thus going against the declaration of independence because it is a law that is restricting the people from their rights to own a weapon for protection.
People think that by banning guns you're minimizing crime, but news flash the only people committing crimes are criminals, which is the key word here. Criminals don't register for guns or abide by the gun laws, so when you remove a citizens rights to bear arms then who do you think is going to be the only one who has guns? Criminals! So now when you walk down the street to buy a burger from McDonald's and you are mugged, how will you protect yourself? A taser would work and so would a knife but will they work against a criminal with guns they bought off the black market? NO WAY IN HELL! Guns will be easy to attain with or without guns banned just like teens under age can obtain beer and alcohol just as easily as a 21 year old. Don't ban guns because criminals will still attempt to kill you either way, but they will be more hesitant too when they know citizens still have the right to pack fire power.
If you support gun control you should move to china. You don't need to worry over there. They take the guns as well as all your other rights away. No protest no voting. Just thrown in jail if you oppose the government. Have fun. We can't allow that to happen here.
Look at the other amendments, particularly the 1st. The 1st amendment reads "congress shall... [pass no law] abridging the freedom of speech, or the freedom of press, or the right of the people to peaceably assembly..." No one reads this and concludes that freedom of speech or assembly is limited to those associated with the press. Similarly, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not dependent on the people's association with the militia.
The preface of "a militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" in no way limits rhe bounds of the right to bear arm. Supreme Court Justice Scalia gave the proper definition and analysis of the mechanics of the grammar in the 2nd amendment in his opinion regarding "Washington D.C. Versus Heller"
Additionally, the bill of rights is a collection of individual rights and hence would be incongruent to believe that this amendment is a collective right.
It starts with a ban on automatic weapons than these types of weapons and than these types. It starts with a national registry and than the guns are taken away. Most gun laws aren't constitutional. The laws that negatively Impact law abiding citizens are very unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed.
I don't think it's the guns. I think its the person. Of course the gun kills But who pulls the trigger? A human bean. A person could kill someone with a knife should knifes be illegal? No, just like guns. " 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." and I believe it should not be infringe
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
No where here does the constitution say congress has jurisdiction over anything besides a militia. They cannot make laws that do not involve enforcing their enumerated powers. How individuals keep and bear arms is not an enumerated power and is therefore out of their control.
"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." Any law restricting the ownership of guns, therefore, MUST be deemed unconstitutional as it is infringing upon the people's explicitly guaranteed right. Oh yeah, and all of those laws and government raids against militia groups,those are illegal too.