Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Liberals, where in the second amendment does it grant the government the authority to ban any kind of firearm ?
Biden said the second amendment doesn't protect the people right to own any kind of firearm they want, so how about his supporters back up that claim.
Oh and before you say it, the words well regulated means to keep regular and in working order. It's also in relation to the militia, not the peoples right to bear arms.
@James: Great job NOT sourcing the second amendment there, champ. lol
@Uncle Pennybags: I didn't say they couldn't make rules towards the militia. The words well regulated just gives those rules a stated function and purpose.
@Anonymous: "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."
Lets quote that last part again since you can't read it .
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
That makes clear the people do in fact have a right to bear arms. Care try again.
@yogicskier: Which is why it's illegal to use your gun to kill people or otherwise harm people. Really dear, did you think I didn't consider that? lol
@Cindy LGPB: The word arms is speaking towards firearms. The right to bear arms is also separate from the militia as the grammar of the clause makes clear. Goodness, you liberals can't appear to read.
@Cindy LBPB: When the second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" that is not only speaking towards firearms, but it is saying the government can not infringe on the peoples right to bear them.
@James: And btw, you can still buy fully automatic weapons. It does however have a consider price barrier associated with it.
@Judy and Charlie: The government doing something and the government having the constiitional authority to do that something are different things.
8 Answers
- 5 days ago
Pretty sure The Supremes won't see it in there, either.
I think the Democrats are about to learn that you can win The House, The Senate, and even the Presidency, and still lose the Culture War.
Source(s): Clinging to Guns, Bibles, and Free Speech - ?Lv 75 days ago
Well genius, since the ban on full-auto has been ruled constitutional, that sets what is known as precedence.
- Judy and CharlieLv 75 days ago
Please pay attention because the federal government DOES BAN THE SALE AND OWNERSHIP OF hand grenades, bazookas and surface to air missiles, explosives such as TNT and Nitro, Military flame throwers and a lot of other pretty little toys that criminals would just LOVE TO OWN!
- ?Lv 75 days ago
Where in the Second Amendment does it mention the word firearms? As worded in the Second Amendment the government can't stop you from being armed, if you're a member of a regulated militia, but it says nothing about restricting the type of arms you are allowed to carry. If they want to, the government can tell you that you that can have all the pointy sticks you want, but no guns. If you don't believe that then try to go and buy a nuclear weapon.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 5 days ago
We require insurance, driving tests, have seat belt laws, have laws against going out loaded and require persons to register their vehicles in which if someone moves to a new state they have to do all that over again. Why shouldn't we use the same logic for firearms?
- yogicskierLv 75 days ago
No right is absolute. Is doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
- Uncle PennybagsLv 75 days ago
As a huge pro-Second Amendment person, I would argue that your definition of well regulated is wrong. Even back in the 18th Century, it also meant to create rules.
Still, your point is very well taken, it is the MILITIA that is to be regulated. Which means there should be a command structure created, a militia code of justice, training requirements, and any other rules and requirements for the militia.
When the Second Amendment discusses the actual RIGHT, it says quite clearly, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It says that in plain language gun haters!!!
It is the People that have that right. Not the state. Not the militia. And that right shall not be infringed!
UPDATE: Actually, you defined "well regulated." You stated assertively what it meant. I am simply pointing out that your definition doesn't hold water. Not logically. Not by definition either.
- Anonymous5 days ago
LOL moron you didn’t even read my answer correctly, and then you went on to complain that I can’t read.
First of all your definition of well regulated is so wrong it’s hilarious.
Secondly, the second amendment does not explicitly say civilians can own firearms of any level of destructiveness. One could just as easily argue that allowing ownership of slingshots is sufficient to satisfy the right.
