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.

  • Right to bear arms

    The founding fathers if they were alive today would have said that any and all guns are included in the word arms that was used. History shows that when the brass tacks fell they called on everyone to take up arms and defend the land, or even hunt to feed the people. There is no difference today, we have the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, and hunt for food. But only if the government will sell us a permit. Did the founding fathers have to have a permit to carry their weapons? Or to hunt for food?
    No they didn't and we shouldn't either.

  • It is a violation of the freedoms this country was built on.

    It is every man's right to bear a firearm. To protect himself from the government should history repeat itself. The problem the government has with this is that guns put us on equal ground. Guns do not kill, people do. There is no point in arguing that. It's not a problem with gun control, it's a problem with mental health.

  • Gun control = violation of our right to bear arms

    We were given such a right so we could protect ourselves from both a tyrannical goverment or an assult on our person/property. By implementing gun control laws we are strip from that right and therefore we are burnable to being either mugs or puppets of a tyrant government. . .

  • Do not blame the Gun!

    Gun control is basically taking away a person's right to arm themselves with a gun. Some people always blame guns for all the killings that are happening. It's not, it's the PERSON who USES the gun. We need to stop blaming inanimate objects that causes trouble. The person who uses that inanimate object for harm is to blame. We were given this right to bear arms to protect ourselves, and, in my point of view and supposedly everybody else's as well, President Obama wants to take them all away from us! It's ridiculous how some people believe that if we take away all guns, we'll be safe. Wrong. Somewhere and somehow, the people who abuse the use of guns will get their hands on them and use them to kill as many innocent civilians as they could, and instead of not only blaming those abusers, they'll still blame the guns.


  • G we ewr r

    Wer t erwt rewt e rt er t re t rew t ew t et er wt erw t ew trew t er t re twe erw t r r wrr e rwt rew t ewr t erw t re t ewr t re t er w tewrtwe r erwt

  • 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.

  • Our Founding Fathers are Rolling in their Graves on how Twisted their Intentions have become

    The second amendment was written so that militias could arm themselves for defensive purposes. Much like the police and military. The citizens needed the right to defend themselves, we were still warring with the native population. We also needed weapons to hunt for food. There wasn't any local supermarkets to purchase food. That is the intent of our founding fathers. They could not conceive of a time when the intentions were twisted and normal citizen are buying assault weapons and shooting up schools.

  • This amendment is NOW completely irrelevant (or should be)

    Late 1700's is when this amendment was put into place. It was a different time, there were different concerns that the general people of our new nation faced. Guns were allowed for self defense and survival in the wilderness, but more importantly so the people could defend themselves from falling under too much government power. There was an intention to keep the government and the people in the proper balance, and there where many who still sought to take power for themselves. In short, today this amendment is more harmful than it is necessary to our society. People wish to have guns for traditional reasons, as they are a big part of our country's history. But the increased amount of shootings in recent years is obviously very disturbing and should be prevented at any cost. America is the 2 highest rated country in shootings. There have been incidents in which people have been afraid to come to America because of the gun violence and attacks. It is even more concerning when you take into account the heightened rate of diagnosed mental illnesses. The nation has been shifting drastically in society behavior and standards, and the wide open freedom of guns is irrelevant and potentially harmful. Most people who own guns are not going to go out and shoot a bunch of innocent people, duh we get that. If it would become nearly impossible for someone to get a gun without proper licensing, training and approved intention, it would be so much easier to keep track of who has a gun and therefore, we could easily prevent terrible shootings from happening. It seems ludicrous with the way things are currently, but it could happen and it would make America a much more peaceful country to live in. People say they need guns to defend themselves, but if the people threatening them with their OWN guns, couldnt obtain them, there would be no reason for one to need guns for self defense. Its a dangerous cycle in itself. Were using the weapon to protect ourselves from the same dangerous weapon, when really we should be paying attention to a solution in which we can closely supervise the production, purchase, and use of that weapon.

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."