The 2nd Amendment Means This to Me

Written at a different time in history

I see the point for the 2nd Amendment at the time it was written. It was necessary for the survival of the United States and it's citizens but it was written a long time ago and things do change over time. I am not advocating that it be discarded as a U.S. citizen's right but how it should be put into practice.

What triggered this particular hub for me was the posting I saw on Facebook by members of the National Association for Gun Rights which depicted Washington, Jerfferson, Madison and Hamilton favouring the 2nd Amendment and Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin and Hitler not favouring the same Amendment. On the surface it looks like the tyrants are wrong and the American forefathers are right.

There is no mention of the fact that there is close to 150 years difference in historical time to the two groups and weaponry development is significantly more developed for the second group. In Washington's time you could really only get flintlock pistols and rifles so most everyone was on an even playing field and they were single shot weapons. I don't know if the Roosevelts and Churchill were in favour of the 2nd Amendment but they were of the same time period of history of the second group mentioned by the gun rights group.

The important thing to understand in the latter timeframe is that weapon development now included rifles, handguns, submachine guns, machine guns, grenades and anti-tank weapons, just to name a few. The key difference over the flintocks is that a lot of the more modern weapons were capable of discharging multiple rounds and were capable of creating much more damage than the former older technology.

So the 2nd Amendment allowed for the right to bear arms (flintlocks). So does that mean I am advocating that a U.S. citizen should only be allowed to buy flintlocks for their protection? The answer is a simple no. Instead, it is more about the fact that gun buyers should be able to purchase single shot weapons in the spirit of the original document and owning anything else in not legal unless you are on duty with the police or armed forces.

But this is not my decision since I am a resident and citizen of your neighbour to the north--Canada. I am hoping that common sense will win out and a reasonable approach will evolve that will result in less violence because it is present everywhere now, not just in the United States. If things don't improve we will just end up using guns to kill one another instead of protecting each other which was the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Let's use our heads and come up with a workable solution people. Too many innocent people have died because guns ended up in the wrong hands. Let's find a way to protect each other while still allowing those who wish to own guns do so but not at the expense of innocent lives. Park the emotional stance and take a logical approach to the survival of a way of life.

More by this Author


Comments 7 comments

jr_leatherneck profile image

jr_leatherneck 3 years ago from Houston, Texas

Those who want to repeal the 2nd Ammendment will never agree with those who refuse to lose the 2nd Ammendment. Bozoplay made a good point. "Too many innocent people have died because guns ended up in the wrong hands". In the wrong hands. Again, in the wrong hands. Because someone commited a crime, others want to infringe on my rights? Really? Punish the innocent? Most gun owners are responsible and are not the "wrong hands." We should solve the real problems and not infringe on our Constitutional rights. I know some won't understand, because they don't want to and refuse to try to understand.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

Then you should take a look at Chicago and ask them how those regulations are doing at preventing violence. It's already against the law to shoot and kill someone, do you think telling someone who is determined to commit an act of mass killing they can't load their weapon with more than 10 rounds is going to stop them?

The speed limit is not enshrined in our Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms that 'shall not be infringed' is however.

Luckily, Sen. Fienstien's bill is DOA in the Senate and is just being used as a distraction anyhow. They can't pass a budget in 4 years but they can write up a gun control bill in 4 days.


Chelsea Heaps 3 years ago

I absolutely agree. The assault weapons ban is a responsible approach and still allows for 2nd amendment rights.

To the commenter above, there are many regulations regarding vehicles. They cannot go above 65 mph on California highways for instance, seat belts are required, etc.

Of course people should be able to buy guns and use them for self-defense or hunting, however there should be certain restrictions to prevent gun violence.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

Because in our system of government, the leaders are not royalty and do not govern by decree, that is what we fought against and why our Constitution is worded how it is, to prevent there from ever being such an imperial government in this country.

There is a reason the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights, and they are separate and apart from all others. These are sacrosanct and unalienable as the basic rights of an American.

The Constitution can be amended only one way, via congress and then ratification of the states. Obama cannot just decide he wants to make a new law, he is not the king, even though he acts as if he thinks he is.


GavNugent profile image

GavNugent 3 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

Why do you have the right to own guns? Because the government of the time the constitution was written saw fit for you to have that right. Why can't they take it away now?

The second amendment will do nothing to protect you from a tyrannical government these days I'm afraid.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

Sorry, but what the 2nd amendment means to a Canadian? Really?

It means nothing to you, but it means a whole lot to us.

Your flintlock analogy is nonsensical at best. The advancement in technology does not negate the Bill of Rights.


jr_leatherneck profile image

jr_leatherneck 3 years ago from Houston, Texas

We should have the right to own any gun that the government can own. If the government uses single shot guns then that is what we should have. If they have M-16s, then we should have the right to own them.

Someone will take this view to the extreme. I understand there are those against guns. Shall my rights be infringed on because someone else breaks the law.

If someone kills someone else with a car, does it make sense to limit my car to 4 cylinders?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working