it was a compromise to slave owners so that they could squash slave revolts before they turned to riots. And BTW it is one of the least relevant things in the 10 amendments listed. Unless the NRA concedes and everyone goes back to having flint lock rifles like they did when teh second amendment was approved via a compromise.
In either case, though, whether it's to provide for a national defense, or to keep slaves from revolting against their well-armed masters, the amendment's relevance has long since expired. Even if we were to keep following it to the letter, I always notice how those that yell about the "shall not be infringed" bit never seem to remember the "well regulated" part of the same sentence.
However, a key thing also falls on the word "infringed". What does infringement actually mean? Where's the limit? All but the most virulent 2nd amendment types admit that private citizens should not have nuclear weapons. But why then can a similar limit not be placed on rates of fire or magazine size? What about a no-cost mandatory registration and background checks would infringe on someone's rights? The latter would make straw purchases extremely difficult and likely significantly help in keeping guns out of criminals' hands...
@kal, I completely agree, guns do more harm than good. However, statistics like that are less than comforting when you're accosted by someone with a gun, and you don't have a way to defend yourself. I am all for better regulation of firearms, but not to the extent it puts me at the mercy of a criminal (been there, done that, never again. For your curiosity, that was in Hong Kong, a 'gun-free' state).
by the way you can breathe and type at the same time. If it makes you blue in the face you might be doing it wrong.
The first amendment is probably the most ill-quoted amendment in the bill of rights. Take for example the right to "peaceably assemble." How many violent protestors have we seen claiming their first amendment right while torching cars and shooting cops? How many biased reporters have we seen all but praising these violent protestors? There are problems on both sides of the argument. It would be more of a fair fight if the media just reported the facts, and nothing but the facts without prejudice.
Number 2 helps ensure the rest of our rights.
Sure as hell they were needed to fight us British, but it's called an "amendment". Whats the point of calling them that if they never change? Ben Franklin himself said amendments should be changed regularly to KEEP WITH THE TIMES.
And yes, I am a liberal. Sue me. So was Jesus.
Furthermore, compare gun control to the war on drugs. Doesn't seem to work, does it?
Personal opinion, people who spend time on quiz sites like this are more likely to be logical and educated than the masses on both sides who start flamewars on MSNBC (or whatever your pundit company of choice is). The logic and education frequently comes with a liberal generous sprinkling of sarcasm, though, which can make the discussion even more fun (I'm looking at you kal).
That's bullshit - I did attend UVa, but he never said that. I just imagine him saying that to a few interested onlookers on the steps of Monticello, sometime in the late 18th century.
Guess what kal, I have guns. I never shot or even pointed my gun at anyone. I conceal carry to protect myself and my family.
I try to avoid situations and areas that would put myself in danger but I am prepared. kal, do you know that a parachute is unnecessary until you need it. Do you know how many people are legally and illegally carrying a weapon as you walk down the street ?...Don't panic !!!! But it is a lot more than you think..Oh, and get off your FOX news hate. Maybe if you took your time and actually looked at the Fox website, you would actually see how much news the lib media avoids reporting because it would go against the liberal agenda.
There's nothing really at all liberal or conservative about unfettered access to firearms. This is purely an issue created by lobbyists for gun manufacturers who wish to sell more firearms and ammunition.
Both Democrats and Republicans, those with any intelligence or integrity at all (very hard to find any of the latter with integrity these days, Mitt Romney and... that's about it...), often praise and support the Constitution of the USA. In the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the citizenry to bear arms.
However, it's also true that this is part of the Constitution, and you would find very very few Democrats who actually espouse the idea that all guns should be banned or confiscated.
That is, of course, what the insane paranoid delusional propaganda on the "right" WANTS you to believe.... but that's because FEAR of having their guns confiscated drives up sales of guns and ammunition, and remember, that is ultimately the end goal of those producing the propaganda.
So... Bill Clinton did not ban guns in America because he had no desire to do so. Also it may have cost him politically as it would have motivated the gun nuts to get out to the polls. But, he and Congressional Democrats DID pass an assault rifle ban, which was effective while it lasted.
As to why Obama didn't really pursue this... I think mostly it just was not at the top of his agenda. He was trying to tackle healthcare reform and a lot of other things and Congressional Republicans dug in pretty hard to oppose literally everything he was doing. And making an issue out of guns inflames the Republican base so it's not something that he would have done casually, as he was a pragmatist and a centrist. Remember that stupid Fast & Furious fiasco? The truth of the matter was that this only happened because of lax gun control laws in the SW. But Obama didn't even mention this because it was an election year.