What was the main reasoning behind the right to own guns?
546393
I suggest you read the constitution.\n\nA 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.
840670
I realize this is probably a waste of time; but what the heck.\n\nAs explained, the idea of a "people's right" was based entirely on the predicate assumption of State regulation. So actually, the militias then are the 18th century equivalent of the National Guards of today. And what the amendment protects is the states' right to have them. These are the only state defense forces recognized by law. You say that you won't get into the discussions of Supreme Court decisions in the last decades. You may recall my original answer. The Supreme Court has NEVER in the history of the Republic (repeat: NEVER) substantiated your interpretation. So forget about "recent decades," as you say. Your view is not substantiated by American Judicial History -- period.\n\nYou say that it's shooting myself in the foot to say that portions of the constitution are anachronistic? How? The Letters of Marque clause is anachronistic. The 3/5ths compromise is anachronistic.\nThe 3rd Amendment is anachronistic. (There is absolutely no case law under it -- it's dead). All but one sentence of the entire, long, 14th amendment is anachronistic. There are many elements of the document that have no relevance today because they addressed concerns that were limited to a specific time. That's just the way it is -- sorry.\n\nAs stated, your idea of a self regulated private militia being what the founders intended by this amendment is refuted by the extant record of the Constitutional Convention and the minutes of the First Congress. The whole idea of eliminating private militias was why the states wanted this amendment in the first place. They wanted to put private militias out of business.\n\nThe greatest single impetus for convening the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the private militia movement known as Shays' Rebellion, in which disgruntled former soldiers in Massachusetts formed a private (well regulated) militia force to stop courts from farm foreclosures. The Founding Fathers were horrified by this. And so were the states. And again, to reiterate, THAT's why they wanted to regulate the militias.\n\nI've already addressed the issue of "shall not be infringed." If your interpretation is correct, then why have courts over the centuries (not "recent decades" as you imply) NEVER ruled in your favor.\n\n\n\n==============================================\n\nYes, as a matter of fact I do know what it means.\n\nLike the Article One provision giving Congress the authority to grant "Letters of Marque," the 2nd Amendment is an anachronistic holdover from the late 18th century.\n\nSupporters of the NRA and other like organizations always forget about that all important opening clause (which I'm glad you included). The purpose of the amendment is stipulated right there -- "A well regulated militia being necessary..."\n\nAfter the United States gained independence it was still confronted by many threats: the British to the north, the Spanish to the south, and the Native American tribes all around. After George Washington laid down his arms, the national army ceased to exist, and the burden for security fell on the states. Unfortunately, the states at that time were no more capable of providing the security than the infant central government. This meant that local communities and individuals were responsible for providing their own security. With few roads for transporting armies, and no money for troops, what else were the people supposed to do?\n\nThe militia system developed to enable local populations the ability to provide defense. By law, the militia was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 55 who owned a firearm. They could be mustered by order of the governor of the state or by special order of the President of the United States.\n\nThis was not part of the original constitution. The reason it exists is that during the ratification of the
700704
No dude.  Its the right to bear arms.  You have the right to hang bear arms over your mantle.  Why does everyone confuse this?
761860
Agree.  Criminials like for their victims to be unarmed.  The only thing a gun law ever did was cause crime rates to go up, because criminals are no longer afraid they might get shot.
360141
The two are the individual rights thesis and the state's rights thesis. The first says that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms, while the latter argues that it guarantees only a state's right to maintain a militia and bear arms in so doing.
213496
Of course I support our second ammendment right.  For those who think it's not needed anymore maybe they should ask the thousands of civilians who's lives are saved simply because they own a weapon.  I have a right to protect me and my family and will do so at all costs.  If we take guns out of those who abide by the law and purchase them legally we are only leaving them in the hands of the criminals. Because I guarantee that crack dealer down the street didn't fill out the paperwork for that 9mm he has in his belt.
464167
I think the second amendment is just that, the right to bear arms.  I honestly think if murdered people had a gun in their home and had time to get it, they would not be dead and their murderer would be, or at least injured and in jail.  In some of these homicide cases, the murderer is never found.  I would rather have the comfort of knowing that way up in the corner of my closet where no child can reach is a my life saving .45 automatic then nothing and being slaughtered.
451767
I'm going to go against liberals on this one even though I consider myself a liberal. Gun ownership is protected by the 2nd ammendment. Everyone (with the exception of felons convicted of violent crimes) has the right to bear arms. I did qualify that right because I believe if you take away the rights of another through violence, you deserve to have your right taken away.\n\nI find it funny, and a bit hypocritical, that all the sponsers (except 1) of this are Republicans.\n\nThe 2nd ammendment 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." In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of federal firearm statute at issue but, importantly, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to possess firearms, not just members of "militias." (see link)\n\nThere are no exceptions in the 2nd ammendment. It does imply that self defense is the primary objective. So, where should the line be drawn? If you feel you may be threstened at work, on your way to/from work, or at any point along the way, then you have a right to carry. \n\nWhile I can't email Florida Reps because I don't live in that state, I support you in your efforts.
6402
There is no sense involved with this issue at all. I'm 19 and a member of the Army National Guard so I know where you're coming from. I would like to own and cary a handgun. Uncle sam says I cant because i'm not mature enough yet. But its OK for me to cary one to my death in war. There plain and simply is no sense at all regarding this issue. Its just the bureaucrats jacking everything up like always. writing nonsense laws for there own agendas or somone's agenda who has something that bureaucrats want and its usually money. To them it makes "CENTS,"\nrather than sense. Sense to them is money, not whats realy good for the american people. I'm sory but there is no answer for your question but that its nonsense. It is sad but true.
905737
Law abiding citizens can have all the guns they want. Everyone I know has at least one.  If the police show up to take my gun, well, there will be some shooting. It is my right to have one and to defend myself in my home. Badge or no badge, no one will get it without getting shot.
693883
The rights were originally established by English common law.  Common law is based upon trial presidence.  There was a fear that the government could alter these rights.  The amendment codified the rights so they could not be changed by Congress.
111993
Because 99.999% of the people who own guns don't use them to kill other people.  Your connection between gun ownership and murder is nonsensical.  Learn how to properly structure your arguments.  I own a gun and have never used it to murder or harm another person.
157137
you have the right to bear arms or to own weaponry
1184994
The Founding Fathers wanted government to be as unintrusive as possible.\n\nRight now, government controls EVERYTHING, from how many gallons of water per flush for a toilet, to how long my shotgun barrel must be.\n\nJust recently, liberal Supreme Court Justices decided government can force me out of my home, to make room for commercial construction.  And you wonder why liberals want to take our guns away?\n\nOur Founding Fathers would not be happy.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~\n\nSome people posting below are confusing "privacy" with "liberty".  There's a reason the Constitution doesn't mention privacy.
381269
the second amendment.
760455
You can not impose democracy by gun, simple as that. Democracy comes from within.
287993
It would be good to keep guns off the streets.  There are to many people who do not know how to use guns carrying them around, and so they are bound to get injured or injure others without any good reason.