Amazon.com Widgets

Is gun control a violation of the Bill of Rights?

  • We Aren't Colonial

    Simple fact; the second amendment was written in a time of fear of confusion, and for a purpose that isn't any longer needed. It is known that it was intended to be interpreted as a means to arm a colonial American militia. Therefor gun control doesn't violate 2nd amendment because of it's purpose.

  • Yes it is

    The second amendment was included simply because the founding fathers were giving the people the right to protect themselves from a government that might want to take control of this country and do things like had been done in the country they just left a few years earlier and they were right. As government gets stronger the people that work for that government and I'm talking about the leaders think that they know more about what is best for everyone and that is just wrong, we are free to believe whatever we want as long as it does not infringe on others freedoms. Therefore if we give in to government and let them do all the decision making for us we give them more power and anytime you give political leaders more power they want more power and that is when things collapse and chaos ensues..Never give up the freedoms this country was founded on EVER!

  • Current gun control proposals are worthless

    Don't you know that guns save lives. These massacres are not a gun control issue they are mental health issues. Gun control won't stop massacres, the mentally ill will go to knives, bombs, cars... Stop trying to control guns. A gun in the hands of guardians will help stop these maniacs more than any gun control will.
    Leave the guns alone.
    Gun control doesn't work. England, violent crime is spiking. Australia, violent crime is spiking. Chicago, well... How much more violent can it become.
    The argument of gun deaths decreasing in all these areas and cities does not fall on deaf ears; however, what is the cost in deaths from home invasions, rapes, robberies, murders.
    If you want gun control, advertise that your house is gun free... Please do, double dare you.

  • If you knew how to read....

    Of course it is. It is the 2nd amendment afterall. Designed specifically to defend the 1st.

    Every and I mean EVERY nation that disarms its law abiding citizenry escalates violent crimes.

    No matter how liberals try to lie... the facts are there.

    Take jolly ol England as a prime example... or any part of the UK.... all disarmed and all at the mercy of the INCREASED criminal element.

    We have seen this failed experiment here in America.... Washington DC ring a bell?

    The founding fathers wanted everyone armed to keep the checks and balances in regard to stopping a recurrence of a monarchy.

    If you do not like the laws of the land... America has another freedom... the freedom to leave.

  • Yes

    The founding fathers sought for the people to keep and bear arms, not for hunting or sports, but to protect liberty and lives. In order to protect liberty, the government should have a healthy understanding that the people are the owners of the government. The only way to do that is allow the people the same amount of force to protect liberty, and overthrow any tyranny in which we may face.

  • It is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

    As Americans, we should be allowed to own guns. It isn't the guns that kill people. Its the people that kill people. These people that shoot up schools and theaters and anywhere else, they've just got a mental illness. Saying that guns aren't allowed for the rest of us just because someone with a mental illness can't handle a gun, is like saying that nobody can eat sugar just because there are people with diabetes. Nobody can help developing a mantel illness or even being born with one, just like nobody can help getting diabetes. The Bill of Rights says we have the right to own a gun for protection. Just imagine how many people would die if only the people that acquired them illegally had them. Nobody would be able to protect themselves. We all know that guns will become like drugs one day. Someone will get the great idea to sell them for a lot of money and leave the rest of us defenseless with our rapidly growing knife collections. Its bs. Plain an simple. Stop trying to control the things that were made to be good.

  • It is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

    As Americans, we should be allowed to own guns. It isn't the guns that kill people. Its the people that kill people. These people that shoot up schools and theaters and anywhere else, they've just got a mental illness. Saying that guns aren't allowed for the rest of us just because someone with a mental illness can't handle a gun, is like saying that nobody can eat sugar just because there are people with diabetes. Nobody can help developing a mantel illness or even being born with one, just like nobody can help getting diabetes. The Bill of Rights says we have the right to own a gun for protection. Just imagine how many people would die if only the people that acquired them illegally had them. Nobody would be able to protect themselves. We all know that guns will become like drugs one day. Someone will get the great idea to sell them for a lot of money and leave the rest of us defenseless with our rapidly growing knife collections. Its bs. Plain an simple. Stop trying to control the things that were made to be good.

  • We the people

    Let's understand "We the People". We are the government. When we allow the elected govern on their beliefs and not the majority we fail. We should all take each of our rights with careful thought before thinking our fore fathers would not have said things if they knew the changes in our future. They would not. The Supreme Court has difin d the second Ammendment for us. So let's quit with the well regulated militia only thinking. But if that what you think then every Vet should be able to own any weapon used while in the service. So let's just keep with We the People and our rights, all of them.
    If you don't like the laws of the land then speak up and let's just put it to a national vote and make the outcome the law of the land. The second amendment is just as much for you as me. If you don't want a gun then don't own one but as long as I do and I don't commit a crime then leave me alone as I will you. But when things go bad, as history has proven on many occasions don't ask for my gun. Let the govt, police and military with whom you has full trust in protect you.

  • Gun regulation saves lives

    Tell me more about the criminals who obey laws. Oh wait.....

    If nobody had a gun, criminals would go on a shooting rampage. Seen GTA V? Notice no pedestrian has a gun? Do you think people would play GTA V if every person had a gun? You shoot one person and suddenly 50 people around you are shooting at you. Apply that to real life. Where do mass shootings occur? "Gun free zones"

  • A Major Violation of Rights

    Leftists seem to think that it is their authority to interpret the Constitution to fit their own beliefs. The second amendment was put into place not for the purpose of solely regulating a militia, but to protect self and property and most importantly, to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. The right to keep and bear arms is probably one of the most important parts of our constitution.

  • 2nd Amendment is Anochronistic

    The 2nd amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”. The opposition must realize the context of the Bill of Rights has since changed in 300 years. Our Founding Fathers did not see the light of day when the semi-automatic weapon was created, otherwise the 2nd amendment would have been adjusted accordingly. The need of a “well regulated militia” is no longer applicable; neither does every citizen need to bear arms. Plus, citizens are not the militia. We must look at the history of the 2nd amendment comprehensively, as its purpose in the late 18th century is now antiquated; people no longer have to protect themselves from tyranny as our past counterparts did living under a, at that time, underdeveloped system of government. Even if people insist on gun ownership, they absolutely can as long as thorough checks are done beforehand. I just do not see our founding fathers condoning ownership of semi-automatic weapons in today’s context.

  • No, gun control is not a violation of the Bill of Rights

    Gun control is not a violation of the Bill of Rights. It is because the Bill of Rights was set up 3 hundred years ago and things that mattered in the past may be be important in this age. The right to bear arm was meant to protect themselves in the times of war because right now, it is no longer the case. Gun control should be implemented to protect the lives of Americans, so school shooting can stop.

  • Civilians are NOT a militia

    The 2nd Amendment, as ratified, 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." The language can be difficult to understand. However, the first clauses states that a militia (as in, military) is necessary to the security of a free state (especially a new one like the US at that time). There should be a military with guns. However, the average citizen who is not in the military is not a militia in and of themselves. The average citizen is not defending the security of the US. That is the military's job. Therefore, it is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment to have gun control.

  • No, gun control is not a violation of the bill of rights

    Nowhere in the bill of rights does it say "all citizens have the right to bear any type of arms they damn well please" The original intent of second amendment was to protect the rights of citizens to protect themselves, which I would argue can best be done with a shotgun anyway. The semi-automatic assault weapon was not around when the founders were writing the constitution, and I think if it had been the language of the amendment would have been very different.

  • "Well Regulated Militia"

    The 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". In 1791 the army of America was not the standard it is today. Moreover, today there is a police service as well as a more effective court system to serve justice where it is deserved with (relative) peace. As American society has developed in over 220 years, the context has changed and the need for a 'well regulated militia' has developed too. Society is different now and the need for every citizen to bear arms - as they once may have needed to when such systems were not in place - is no longer applicable. Even if people did feel that they need to be in possession of a weapon in case of attack still, then okay, as long as thorough checks are done beforehand. But I cannot see how the Founding Fathers - whose words the pro-gun supporters follow adamantly - would consent to the possession of semi-automatic weaponry. This cannot be right.

  • Everything has limitations.

    The Supreme Court has ruled throughout history on the side that most benefits the majority in this nation even if that means to infringe on the rights of some. Think about the ruling on the Patriot Act and how that was for the "good of the country" and how it tramples all over our rights as well.

  • Slippery Slope an argument to the absurd

    Any argument that starts and ends with the most dire, worst case scenario is an argument based on fear and not logic. It doesn't hold for gay rights, same-sex marriage, gun control, or drugs. If were true we wouldn't have seat-belts, air-bags, any form of food safety or health care.

  • The Queen of England’s plan to re-occupy America.

    At the risk of divulging official state secrets, as a British Citizen with some high-level political connections, I am prepared to disclose Britain’s plan to re-conquer the United States: there isn’t one. That’s not because some US citizens carry guns, though, it’s more do with the fact that the United States processes by far the most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen. Also, we are allies. If they had been able to see into the future, I think the chaps who drafted the US Constitution may have chosen a different wording; clearly the United States no longer has to rely on a civilian militia to protect herself from potential enemies.

  • Guns are not the real cause

    Gun control has come to affect millions of children's in America and though we can for the right to bare arm we are not investing in the lives of the new generations. Thus demonstrating that though we focus on who should have the right to bare arms we do not focus on the education of others.

  • The second amendment isn't violated by gun control.

    The second amendment gives us the civil right to obtain a firearm. But current laws allow states to create regulations for obtaining them, and even stop certain types of guns from being purchased. Although I don't support heavy gun control or banning guns altogether, I can't say that gun control laws violate the amendment.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Fizelwink says2015-10-21T16:09:57.423
Yes. In fact, the amendment reads that the right to bear arms is even an inherent human right independent of the constitution. One grammatical expert said...
"The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."