The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms...but how many guns is to many? And do you think this is what the founding fathers had in mind?

 

To a dedicated collector, a hundred may not be enough. In the hands of a "thug", one is too many. I'm sure that there are plenty of sites available to debate the second amendment. but I don't think this is one of them.

 

Actually it does not talk about an individual's right to have a gun. It actually refers to the right to maintain an armed militia. People refers to the collective populations of the states not individuals. The country had just fought a battle to free itself from a strong central government and had in fact created a very weak central government as a replacement after wining the Revolution but The Articles of Confederation were failing because of the lack of a strong central government in its structure.

While some favoured the much stronger central government of the Constitution many others feared it. The 2nd amendment was added to assure those states who were afraid of the Constitution’s strong central government they would have the option of a strong militia to free themselves of a too strong central government. And in fact some states exercised that option in 1861. Basically though it was a poltical consession to get hold out states to vote.

Remember these were the same people who came up with the Electoral College rather then the direct vote method because they didn't think the unwashed masses were smart enough to be allowed to choose a president without guidance from the educated rich land oweners. Sure they cared about their individual rights but no real evidence they cared much for those they felt inferior to them.

 

Thank you Ray for an intelligent reply.

How many firearms an individual owns is a valid question. Another thing to consider is how many people there are now. The population of the United States is currently about 300 million compared to 2.5 million in 1776.

 

I'm not going to start anything, but I respectfully disagree with Ray on this one. The "militia" was the individuals of the day. There was no "organized" group forming these militias. Individually these men kept their arms and were allowed to do so via the second amendment. When called upon, they formed the militia and could thwart a central government action should it be necessary. So techincally the individual had the right to keep and bear arms.
I don't think the second amendment addresses the number of firearms, as well as it shouldn't. I'll have to agree with goldstar, it isn't the gun itself but the intent of the person who is wielding it. I collect many, but I only carry one. One shot, one kill. The others are for my pleasure of owning. Investment, maybe.
Sorry Ray, love ya bro.

 

1. the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In the recent McDonald decision it ruled that the 2nd Amendment right is an individual right and not related to the right of the states to form militias. By that decision they incorporated the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution via the 14th Amendment, applying that individual right to the laws of the states and localities, not just the federal government. In fact the right to keep and bear arms has been found by the Supreme Court to be a right which preceded the US Constitution, as a result of the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

2. The Senate committee that wrote the 2nd Amendment did not keep full records. But all the members were Federalists, and had opposed a Bill of Rights as being unneeded for a strictly limited Constitution. They were forced to write a Bill of Rights only because of the bargain struck to ratify the Constitution.

Based on the existing state constitutions, the English Bill of Rights and the one surviving original draft of the 2nd Amendment there is no question that the militia was considered the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms. Fearing that Quakers and others whose religion forbid bearing arms would be forced to serve in the militia by that statement they added a clause about letting those with religious scruples not be forced to bear arms. Then - apparently because they disagreed that any Bill of rights was needed, they shortened everything as much as possible. They chopped out those 2 clauses to offset each other and greatly shorten it, retaining the basic meaning, that the people had the right to keep and bear arms and the states had the right to form militias.

The militias vs a standing army was an entirely different argument. The USA ended up with both and both are in the body of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment has that militia clause merely to reassure the Anti-Federalists that the states would still have the primary military force, as discussed at length in the Federalist papers.

3. Please read Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government. The political theory then and now is that governments were formed only with the consent of the governed. But as also detailed in the Federalist Papers, pure democracies always ended up as tyrannies because the people, concerned with their own affairs and not educated about government, weren't competent to decide the affairs of state on their own. Thus today the USA and most other free countries are representative democracies.

To make sure of representation of the people, and of a deliberative, effective government and to insure against a tyranny resulting from an unfortunate popular direct election, the Constitutional Convention established a mixed electoral system. Representatives were elected directly for 2 years, and even small property owners usually qualified to vote even in the first elections. Senators, chosen as decided by the state, served for 6 years. Most were elected by the state legislatures, popular statewide elections not being required until the 17th Amendment of 1913. The President, felt to be the office most dangerous to liberty, was to be elected by a College of Electors, chosen as the state legislatures decided. Soon popular election of the electors became universal, but the electors still cast votes almost always by states, and this has forced presidential candidates to run national campaigns instead of concentrating on rolling up huge majorities in the largest states.

And by the way both Washington and Jefferson were avid gun collectors and each had dozens of guns. A few of Jefferson's still survive at Monticello. And I doubt either of them would ever have agreed with you, Ray.

 

I would like to also point out that a militia IS you and I. A militia is not the police, it is intended for states to call upon the people living in that state to fight against the central government as Ray pointed out. Therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " Granted the Big government is pretty much here to stay and I don't foresee states raising a militia to fight it but it still in there and for good reason.

Are far as how many guns is too many? You could ask that question about just about everything. How many cars do people need? TV's? How many square foot house is too much? This country is free (more or less) as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights I see no problem with people owning as many or as few things as they want.

 

That statement is contrary to all US Supreme Court rulings on all rights. First, there are no collective rights in the USA, just individual rights. Groups of people who may have been deprived of their rights may be treated as a class for administrative purposes only, but their rights are due them as individuals.

The right to raise a militia is a state's right as a sovereign government, and in the original draft of the 2nd Amendment the militia was defined as "the body of the people" in order to avoid militias selected for political reasons, the "trained bands" of the English Civil War.

This state's right is dependent on the availability of an armed citizenry, and the individual right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the state's right to raise a militia.

Your construction is 180 degrees out of line with the court rulings.