Horst wrote:I WILL own a gun when I become a homeowner. Part of America has always been the idea that you protect whats yours... at least thats how I view america.

If I EVER catch someone trying to rob me, I intend to shoot to kill. Just better make sure its a good shot, if you don't kill him he can sue you, and if you fire more than 1 or 2 shots into him your guilty of excessive force.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms.[1] The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The American Bar Association has noted that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution.[2]

For almost a century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times.[3] Notable U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment include those in United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), United States v. Miller (1939) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

The concept of a universal militia originated in England.[7][8][9] The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty[10][11][12][13] dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land-owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[14]

In response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.[15]

Following the Protestant overthrow of the Catholic King James II, the Protestant controlled Parliament obliged the newly installed Protestant monarchs William and Mary to enact the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which granted Protestants a series of liberties including the right to arms for self defense: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."[16] For instance, in 1780 after some riots, the recorder of London - the city attorney - was asked if the right to arms protected armed groups, he wrote: "The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable."[17] At least one historian describes this as the first instance when the customary duty to bear arms transitioned into a right.[18][19] Other historians describe this as an example of the traditional restricting of weapons access for one class of people over another, in this case the Protestant victors over the vanquished Catholics.[19][20] Additionally, this reflected the popular dread of a standing army and the preference instead for a select militia. These values would have a long life both in England and America.[19]

Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England describes the right to arms in England during the eighteenth century:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[21]

The right of some English subjects to possess arms was recognized under English common law; however many English subjects were not permitted by law to possess arms.[18] Regarding these constraints, St. George Tucker wrote in 1803:

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[22]

Mick A wrote:I don't know much about American history except the basics. What's the story behind the 2nd amendment? ie why was it put in?
Mick

n0t_u wrote:
But, it says it's there to keep a ready standing Militia, is that really needed when you have either the strongest or one of the strongest armies in the world?

Kilkrazy wrote:The right to bear arms is derived from the right to bear arms embodied in the 1689 Bill Of Rights.

The 1689 Bill only provides the right for Protestants to bear arms, however, and as defined by law.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The 1689 Bill only provides the right for Protestants to bear arms, however, and as defined by law.

Horst wrote:I WILL own a gun when I become a homeowner. Part of America has always been the idea that you protect whats yours... at least thats how I view america.

If I EVER catch someone trying to rob me, I intend to shoot to kill. Just better make sure its a good shot, if you don't kill him he can sue you, and if you fire more than 1 or 2 shots into him your guilty of excessive force.

Mick A wrote:This is not a troll.
I can't ever recall thinking I need a gun or ever thinking it would be cool to own one. Yes I played with toy guns as a kid but even then didn't think 'wouldnt it be great if this was real...'
I'm not trying to knock people who do own them, each to their own as long as no one gets hurt, just would like to hear why they have/need them.
Cheers, Mick

I WILL own a gun when I become a homeowner. Part of America has always been the idea that you protect whats yours... at least thats how I view america.

If I EVER catch someone trying to rob me, I intend to shoot to kill. Just better make sure its a good shot, if you don't kill him he can sue you, and if you fire more than 1 or 2 shots into him your guilty of excessive force.