Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the ...
Insurrectionist theory applies primarily to gun owners who arm themselves against perceived governmental tyranny to resist (or overthrow) it. [3] Insurrectionist theory can be divided into two components: Individuals should keep arms and armor as a check on government tyranny. [1] [2] [3] Individuals have a duty to act against tyranny with arms.
They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" – apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee.
Here’s what Second Amendment actually says: “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.”
The only amendment to be ratified through this method thus far is the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933. That amendment is also the only one that explicitly repeals an earlier one, the Eighteenth Amendment (ratified in 1919), establishing the prohibition of alcohol.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution undisputedly protects the individual right to own and carry firearms for self-defense, sport, and other uses. But the amendment actually says ...
Unlike the First Amendment—which prohibits abridging the freedom of speech—the Second Amendment bans infringing upon the right to bear arms, a very different construction. This language meant ...
The Second Amendment to the Constitution addressed militias directly. Its clause describing "a well regulated militia" became a point of legal contention in the context of gun control, presenting a dispute as to whether a militia was a prerequisite to gun ownership or if it applied to all citizens in addition to militias.