But as soon as they use their right in some sort of violence or violation, they are breaking the law. Even though their could be some consequences with giving individuals the right to use weapons and bear arms, they still deserve to be able to protect themselves and their household.
The second amendment was never directed towards a specific group of people. Therefore I think that everyone should be able to enjoy this right. If it was directed towards a militia I feel like it would have been specified in the Constitution. Until then, I will continue to believe that the right to bear arms is an individuals right.
I feel that the right to bear arms is necessary to the U.S because it gives citizens to have the privilege to protect their selves in defensive situations. Even though there can be issues with the right to bear arms like gun fights than yes that is an issue, but the person being attacked can defend their selves.
As the second 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". As you can see in the first part says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". It did had the word "Bear" in it. But as the second part says " The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Now in the second part you can obviously has the word "Bear" in it. So there for "Bear" does refer to and individual.
The word bear provides no direct relation to indication of party size. It is inherently a verb, "to bear" something is an action. Therefore I believe it fundamentally applies to the individual, and not an entire militia. Although, the individuals within the militia are granted the right to bear arms, as soon as they negate the practice of peaceable assembly, they are breaking the law.
The right to bear arms is for the militia because they have more power than just an individual who is not in the militia. They also shouldn't give individuals the right to bear arms because they could probably hurt themselves or others. They could also hurt more people than you might think.
I believe that the right to bear arms belongs to the citizens. The creators of the Constitution created the right to bear arms so that the citizens could overthrow a tyranny if one arose in America. The right to bear arms applies to the citizens as well as the state militias. Although it is true that the state militia/national guard, are more trained with the firearms and that would pose a good reason not to allow the citizens to bear arms, the majority of our country still hunt, and know how to handle a firearm. The only time where the right to bear arms should be taken, is when they are used to cause harm to another person or to damage property. This is my argument and what i support.
I believe that the 2nd amendment is referring to individuals. But when a Militia is needed, individuals will have to come together. It depends whether or not it is a state issue that needs to be taken care of. "Bear" arms has a meaning both ways, and can be interpreted in your own opinion.
I believe that individuals in the U.S. should have the rights to carry guns. If they use it for violence, not including self defense, they should face consequences. Even though people might use them for the wrong reasons, I still believe that all individuals should be able to bear arms.
I don't see why people other than the militia need to have the right to bear arms because people use guns for robbery and to kill people. If people other than the militia weren't allowed the right to bear arms less people would be harmed if only the militia was allowed to bear arms.
In the second amendment in the U.S. Constitution, it says that a well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people in that militia to bear arms shall not be infringed. In modern day, our militia is the National Guard. Since the Constitution declares that it is for the militia, I believe it doesn't go to an individual giving them the right to bear arms. We are a well founded government that has an army that we trained well enough to protect us.
I think it should be for militias because they are specially trained in weaponry. They should be the only ones allowed because they are less likely to mess something up. If regular civilians go to the white house with guns, they are more likely to shoot someone because they aren't trained for those kinds of situations.
I believe the militia should be the only people with weapons because they are trained to use the weapons. There is an exception to this though. I think police in cities should be able to have guns to protect the people in the city but they should have to be very well trained to have a gun. I believe if regular people they could go crazy and and start killing innocent people that.
The national guard should be the only one that should be able to own or use guns. Individuals abuse this power or right. Therefore the right to bear arm's isn't for individuals at all, if people just want certain groups or people to have the right to bear arm's then how is this fair? In my opinion it's not. This is supposed to be a free country but with this situation I feel it's not! If only the national guard had this power we wouldn't have to worry about taken on something ourselves cause it would be there job not ours. Plus listen guys you do know that there are other weapons in the world besides guns. We'd be better if the individuals didn't have this right!
I agree people should be able to own fire arms but terrorist groups shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Organizations may be able to own and carry fire arms. Terrorist groups like alquida should not be allowed to carry firearms. The people have the right to carry but people who have illegal intentions shouldnt