For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?
Dear
buddhallah_the_christ
A.
I have found two different interpretations I think are both correct if people are allowed to follow their own
(and not impose on other people where political beliefs cause the same problems as with religious beliefs)
1. One is the interpretation that the guns only applies to "well regulated MILITIAS" and specifically STATE
militias or GOVT as the people. so it is about arming the official military, police, and other security personnel.
2. The other interpretation is that the PEOPLE refers to CITIZENS and it is to counteract the arms held
by the state. That the independent CITIZENRY cannot be disarmed by the state, as that opens the door
to political abuse to prevent checks on govt by the citizens themselves, including using arms when needed.
Both are valid, but historically it is more argued that #2 is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
Those who believe in #1 will argue for that instead, and I believe that is equally valid for them under
Religious Freedom and Equal Protection of Creed from discrimination. So both interpretations deserve
protection and respect according to each person's Political Beliefs, right or wrong, justified or not.
As long as you take responsibility for your Beliefs, you have the right to them, but just not to impose them through Govt against the will and beliefs of the next person who has equal right to defend their beliefs as you do.
B. In general, I would interpret "right of the PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms to mean
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. So this way, it refers to people who are defending the law/Constitution
and only using arms for DEFENSE according to due process and all the same protocol that police follow.
By interpreting the right to bear arms as Enforcing Constitutional law and order,
then it doesn't matter if you interpret Govt militias/military officers to be the people bearing arms or
the citizens, these people are all enforcing the Constitution anyway.
The point I would emphasize is the right and responsibility for arms is within the Spirit of Constitutional laws,
and does NOT have anything to do with freedom to commit crimes or abuses.
If we require Officers to take training and a Constitutional Oath before granting authority to bear arms
for enforcing laws, then why not offer this to ALL citizens so there is a uniform policy, training and oath
for bearing arms in keeping with the same? Why not train ALL citizens in the same policies and protocol
that Police use for apprehension to stop a crime in process, and to comply with due process and all other functions of law enforcement.
If this is led and agreed to among the People or citizens of each district to uphold their own policies with their own local govt and police, then it isn't the Govt dictating regulations but the People deciding how to enforce the laws themselves.
The Conservatives tend to emphasize this freedom reserved to the PEOPLE as in individual citizens in the private sector.
The Liberals tend to emphasize the will of the PEOPLE as established by Govt collectively, especially federal govt.
If we agree on a policy FIRST, then both groups can express and implement the SAME policy in their separate ways they relate to; without imposing their ways on the other group and their traditions and language/terms.
it is still the same concept: that CITIZENS and PEOPLE reserve the right to bear arms to defend the law.
And one group identifies People with the Govt, while the other group relates to People as the private citizens.
We would still benefit from training ALL Citizens/People to uphold the same laws,
whether officially inside Govt or outside as a private individual or group.
oh 2nd amendment,if I was a multi-billionaire, I would take over a nation. Like Zimbabwe.
