richardhutnik said:
The Second Amendment has been framed in the context of individuals carrying weapons to protect themselves from criminals, as if that is the basis of what the second amendment exists, with a secondary issue being the ability to hunt. With this context in mind, the end result is that the debate focuses on how much firepower someone needs to have, in order to meet this. You hear the argument, "Since when do you need an automatic weapon to hunt deer?" End result, the idea of a "well run militia", which is both to protect the citizens against enemies foreign and domestic, and equalize in case of the government becoming a dictatorship and the citizens needing to rebel, is thrown out. The argument is all wrong. America going superpower also has had an impact also, because it has research nukes and other things citizens militias don't have, or are allowed to have. I am NOT saying you can't argue for people carrying a weapon for protection from crime, just that it has to be argued from what I have discussed. I am curious if anyone wants to argue the Founding Fathers thought the intent of the Second Amendment was for people to protect themselves from being mugged. |
the primary reason for the 2nd ammendment was to keep the government in check, if citizens werent armed it would be much easier for an opressive government to form, surpressing the rights of the citizens. the 2nd ammendment ensured that people have a means to rebel
