Guns were originally valued because they could be used to protect the new nation that the Founding Fathers were creating from both internal and external threats (see Federalist 46). Members of the militia could be ordered to use their privately owned guns to battle against an invading army (as happened in the War of 1812) or to suppress a rebellion (such as the Whiskey Rebellion). In our own day, it seems that gun ownership is undermining the purpose for which it was originally valued: lax gun laws have resulted in less security. The US is plagued with a high gun murder and crime rate. Lax gun laws seriously undermine the security of the US. So are people who oppose stricter gun laws anti-Second Amendment? I think so.
We haven't had a lower rate since 1905. The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. Stricter gun oaws, as proposed, attack that protection.
The Whiskey Rebellion saw the federal government, responding more as a monarchy than a constitutional democracy, trample the rights defined by the constitution that had only recently been ratified. It nearly derailed the Union. What undermines the security of the U.S. are those that advocate trampling the constitutional rights of the people. As for the 120million gun owners and their near 400 million weapons, more than all the combine armies of the world, they don't represent a threat against US security, but a check against any move to infringe on those rights and to guarantee the security of the Constitutional prescription for government. If you don't like the 2A, then get the like minded to repeal the amendment by the method prescribed by the Constitution, if you can.
And President Washington, a true LEADER, LED the militia troops to suppress the insurgency. How many rapes, robberies or other violent crimes does government prevent each year? While gun control laws might prevent many law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun, would they be made safer from being victimized by law breaking criminals? My own experience is a result of having been approached by a knife wielding assailant on more than one occasion while working the night shift in a major city, in which displaying my gun resulted in preventing a crime. Those instances never became part of any statistics as no report was filed. Several co-workers did become victims, although none were killed but one was injured while the assailant was never caught.
So what you are saying is the problem is that citizens militias are not allowed to use their guns to stop criminals, drug dealers and terrorists invading the USA? That's the stricter gun laws you are complaining about, right?
The US is plagued with incidents of successful defensive gun uses. They are reported everyday. As has been cited on this forum many times, even anti gun websites like VPC acknowledges that there are more successful defensive gun uses than gun homicides each year.
The ability to keep ones family safe is where freedom starts. If you can't be safe in your own home then you have no freedom.
Very true. "How Gun Advocates’ Blind Focus on 'Freedom To' is Destroying Lives by Ignoring Our Right to 'Freedom From'.... "Gun advocates’ wanton rejection of any gun regulation doesn’t just infringe on society’s 'freedom from' certain actions, it also directly trespasses on individuals’ 'freedom to' live in safety. If the battle over the definition of freedom was merely a philosophical quibble over terminology, this debate would warrant little attention. However, gun advocates’ staunch refusal to recognize 'freedom from' has dire consequences which have contributed to the death of thousands of Americans.... “ 'The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.' – Franklin Roosevelt "In the 72 years since his address, America has become a battlefield where even our children are not safe. Since Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, more Americans have died from gun violence than in all of our nation’s wars, combined." https://www.armedwithreason.com/how...-lives-by-ignoring-our-right-to-freedom-from/ Gun fringe activists are so fixated on the freedom to own guns that they overlook more important freedoms- the freedom to live and freedom from gun violence.
The very concept of "Freedom From" is a moral and ethical failure. There is no such thing as "freedom from fear". This nation is based on the concept of "Freedom To." So long as what I do as an individual citizen does nothing to adversely affect the rights of others to live their lives the way they choose then they have no right or authority to demand I change how I live. They sure as Hell have no right to try to dictate to me what my rights are going to be. My freedom to be armed does exactly NOTHING to affect your "freedom to" live in society... but your demand I surrender my freedom to be armed DOES affect MY "freedom to" live in society.
People legally concealing in TX are documented as being over 10 times less likely to commit a crime as the average Texan based on all convictions in the state of Texas for several years. Any attempt to claim that law abiding citizens are the problem is dishonest. Those gun regulations don't seem to do much good for Chicago, Baltimore, LA, and all of the gun free zones where the vast majority of mass shooting occur. The law abiding in those areas are victims to the criminals who will not heed whatever further gun control law you can think of.
Are you now abandoning your previous position that few people owned firearms during the colonial era, and that even fewer knew how to use and maintain them? There is no evidence to prove that the two standards are connected. There is correlation, but there is no causation. The purpose of the second amendment, to say nothing of the rest of the bill of rights, was never to suppress and restrict private activities by private individuals. Its purpose was to restrict the actions of the federal government, and only the federal government. It was not until after the civil war, and the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, that the bill of rights was extended to apply to the states. But even under this standard, the bill of rights was never about controlling the actions of the individuals who are subject to its protections. The actions of criminals who refuse to abide by the rules of society, are not the result nor the fault of the second amendment. Nor are their actions in any way related to any amendment found within the bill of rights. If you wish to protect the security of the free state, remove those who are committing the violent crimes from society indefinitely. So long as they remain alive and within society where they can do the most harm, they will continue to offend and put others at harm as they see fit. Not all lives are worth protecting. Some lives must be ended, so that other lives may be saved.
There is no gun violence...only people violence. By your silly reckoning you'll be banning bats, fists, and knives next. All because you can't control the criminals Sheesh!
There is no such legal standard as "freedom from" in the united states. You have no right to be free from anything. It is not recognized because it does not exist.