Second Amendment
(Undo revision 144256 by Secret Squirrel (Talk)your still arguing against strong prohibition, btw, I'm gonna add sumthin to talk.) |
(as per talk page: move to essay?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{mission}} | ||
| + | |||
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is part of a collection of the first ten amendments also known as "The [[Bill of Rights]]". It 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 Second Amendment to the Constitution is part of a collection of the first ten amendments also known as "The [[Bill of Rights]]". It 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". | ||
Revision as of 04:03, 1 April 2008
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is part of a collection of the first ten amendments also known as "The Bill of Rights". It 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".
Contents |
The first four amendments
These are provided for context.
First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment. 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.
Third Amendment. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
RationalWiki commentary
The Historical Significance of the Second Amendment.
It is obvious that the second amendment refers to
- The need for a regulated militia which is
- necessary for the security of the state
- and to maintain this militia an armed citizenry is needed and
- consequently the citizens need to bear arms.
The amendment is frequently quote mined to only include the "rights" part which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It is just as frequently quote mined to only include the part that says "a well-regulated militia." Both sides just plain need to chill.
The need for an armed militia today.
With the existence of the heavily-armed National Guard and a comparatively peaceful border situation, it is not clear that citizens' militias are still necessary to deter attacks from Mexico and Canada.
Oh, shit! Mexico and Canada!!! They might attack any day now! And steal our jobs!!!
The need for a well armed citizenry today
Revolution is not necessary in a nation that fears its citizens. Of course, in order for this argument to carry any weight, the citizenry must be as well- or better-armed than the government. There is a saying that "A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny." This can be read as a slightly more legal way of saying "we need guns in case the President ever gets too powerful and we have to shoot him." It deserves some consideration.
Equally one could argue that revolution is not necessary in a nation governed by its citizens. If a true democracy is in place one would wonder what the citizens have to fear. The US is unique among democratic nations in apparently having the idea that democracy requires an armed citizenry - why is democracy deemed to be so fragile in the US that it is felt to need this protection?
On teh other hand
Gun ownership is widespread; restrictions on individual gun ownership which declare gun ownership off-limits to some people and to some types of firearms, and mandatory minimum sentences under federal law for technical gun violations, would theoretically have the effect of driving gun traffic underground and putting people in prison for no other reason than something in their top dresser drawer being declared illegal. Guns are dangerous, true. Opinions may vary widely on guns, and if one is opposed to guns, don't own one.[1]
Furthermore, it seems kind of weird that liberals would be tolerant and support personal choice except on individual gun ownership, and conservatives who otherwise want restrictions on social issues favor individual choice on this one issue - how did this one issue wind up inverted like this? Possibly, this stems from social prejudices. All of this of course doesn't have a lot to do with whatever esoteric interpretation of the Second Amendment one favors.
See Also
External links
- Mark Pitcavage's article on the history of the militia in America.
References and notes
- ↑ If one is opposed to guns in some circumstances on the basis of their potential harm to others, um, one is free not to harm others with the guns one does not own, of course.