Does the 2nd ammendment give us the right to own guns?

Moon's position on the constitution is wrong on the face of it. If carried to the other ammendments our rights to: free seach, religion, Habeus, self incrimination, etc. would all be at the whim of the various states. In other words: no rights at all. As to darth, iI'll bet there are many things he doesn't un derstand. Moon has been reserving his (presumed) brain power, a bit excessively, IMHO!

I do not see how jsonn5 is winning here. MoonDragon613 Clearly made a better argument. I fear opinions are ruling over the voting status again...

Although I typically reserve my brain power to use on those with the capacity to receive, I guess for you I'll make an exception. Count yourself lucky. I'm going to give You a 2 minute lesson on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In 1787, our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution to address some of the glaring weaknesses in the Federal Government as created by the Articles of Confederation. They wanted to make a stronger, more unified Federal Government. However, the anti-Federalists were afraid that a powerful Federal central government would take power away from the states and by extension the citizens. In order to secure the approval of the powerful states of New York and Virginia, our founding fathers agreed to a compromise. They would include the Bill of Rights to limit Federal Government's authority even further.

The American Constitution exists to define the authority and limitations of our Federal Government. It and the Bill of Rights states what the Congress, the Supreme Court, and what the Executive (President), can and cannot do. The First 6 words of the First Amendment is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting". Contrary to popular misconception, the Bill of Rights was Not created to infringe upon the rights of States. And Criminal Law, e.g. the criminal possession of fire arms, is a State jurisdictional matter. Therefore the 2nd Amendment does Not grant people the blanket right to own guns. It grants people the right to own guns without interference from the Federal government. (and this by the way ignores the whole militia part of the 2nd amendment)

Get it?

I agree with birdpiercefan3334, I also don't see your point and i dont think its because he is an idot, I think that U R the 1 with the problem. You seem to have a hard time coming up with frosty coated bullstuff to support your radical point of view. But don't get me wrong, its not easy trying to explain how a statment so simple as "you can own guns" really means, you can't own guns. But I suppose I got my head on strait enough to not even try.

Your post indicates that my 600 characters in Con Round 1 is beyond your ability to read or understand. Clearly you have not actually read any of the arguments, and so I am certain pasting an explanation here would be a waste of my valuable time. But on the other hand, informing you that I think you're either dyslexic or intellectually challenged is amusing (at least to me) and therefore not a waste of my time. Clearly the concept of federalism is beyond you and your high school must have been abysmal. If someone else wants to take the time to explain my arguments to you, he/she/it, is welcomed to. But I suspect their attempts would prove just as futile since you clearly cannot read beyond 100 characters. And probably the word federalism in and of itself is too large for you

-Hear me Roar!

I affirm this resolution, because of the passage by MoonDragon613 states, "I still do not under stand how the second amendment does not give somebody the right to own a gun when it says right there "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." please explain to me how that says that a person does not have a right to own a fire arm."

http://www.debate.org...

This clear arg. shows that it is a right for people to keep-and bear-arms.