What gives US citizens the right to own a gun?

Answer 1

Because they feel that they have the right to because it is written in the American constitution though most gun wielding Americans turn a blind eye to the fact that that section of the constitution was written just after Britain had left America so if Britain returned, America could mobilise an army extremely quickly as most citizens would have guns. Modern Americans don't have the threat of invasion looming over them so they have no reason to keep a gun. Many claim that having a gun is a form of protection but many shootings in America are either in the home between family members or the victim of the shooting is the owner of the gun.

Answer

The question implies that all (or most) Americans carry guns, which is not true. Depending on which source you reference, about 35% to 48% of Americans own at least one gun. According to a Gallup poll, 38% of Americans owned guns in 2005, and the number has held steady at approximately 40% since 2000. In fact, is has NEVER been true (not even at the time the U.S. was founded) that most Americans own guns. Even in colonial times, the majority of Americans did not own guns or even know how to shoot them.

Moreover, having a gun is not the same as carryingone. While 40% of Americans may own guns, the majority of them don't carry them around with them everywhere they go. You need a special permit to carry your gun around with you. Most people are legally bound to leave their guns in their homes.

So, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not carry guns. It's really pretty uncommon. It's the kind of thing you'd be surprised to learn about a person.

And it is certainly not true that modern Americans have no reason to keep a gun. A lot of households in rural areas still hunt for their food. There are a lot of American families out there that would not eat if they did not own hunting rifles.

What is often misunderstood about the 2nd Amendment is the intended use of guns. The 2nd Amendment was not solely intended to protect the U.S. from another British invasion (or any foreign invasion). It was also intended (perhaps even primarily intended) to protect American citizens from their own government.

The 2nd Amendment says that, "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." One of the definitions of "militia" (from dictionary.com) is, "abody of citizens organized ina paramilitary group andtypically regarding themselves asdefenders of individual rightsagainst the presumed interferenceof the federal government."

The founding fathers wanted to make sure that, if their new government became corrupt, its citizens could fight and overthrow it, just as they had fought and overthrown British rule. At the time the U.S. was founded, the right to bear arms was considered of the utmost importance, not just to maintaining the country's independence, but to maintaining a just government.

It is debatable whether "a well-regulated militia" is still "necessary to the security of a free state." Warfare has changed a lot since the American Revolution. Handguns, rifles, and even automatic and semi-automatic weapons would not stand a chance against the bombs and heavy artillery employed by modern armies. If Americans were to fight a war against their government nowadays, the government could easily just bomb the whole country.

The question is: would they? Sure, the U.S. government could stop a modern-day revolution by bombing the whole country. But then there would be no country left. Bombing the entire country into ruins defeats the purpose of fighting for it. The government could bomb the land and win, but then they would have destroyed the entire country, leaving nothing of value left.

One thing the U.S. has learned (or should have learned, rather) from its military history is to never underestimate the power of homegrown guerrilla warfare against an invading force. This is how the U.S. won the American Revolution, lost the Vietnam War, and ended up having way more trouble than it thought it would in the Iraq War.

Of course, if Americans were to fight a modern-day revolution against their government, they would certainly be impeded by the fact that the U.S. army is not an invading force, but a force made up of fellow citizens. When planning and executing offensives in, say, Greenbrier County, West Virginia, the government could employ soldiers from Greenbrier County to help them. But the government would still have the disadvantage of attacking people on their home turf, in terrain that they know best. So it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that Americans don't need guns nowadays because guns would not help them overthrow a corrupt government.

Furthermore (this really goes outside the scope of the question, but), banning guns doesn't necessarily make people safer. Criminals can get guns whether they are legal or not. So, outlawing guns often has the unintended effect of taking firearms away from law-abiding people, while leaving them in the hands of criminals.

This is not to say that the United States does not have a problem with guns and gun control. But banning guns outright is not necessarily the solution. Many states do not have strict gun laws, and even when they do, gun dealers do not always follow them. Strict gun laws (and substantial civil and criminal penalties to ensure adherence to the laws) may be a more practical and effective solution than repealing the 2nd Amendment altogether.

The founding fathers gave American citizens the right to bear arms because they believed it was essential to maintaining a just government. Rightly or wrongly, many Americans still believe this. History has shown that Americans can be downright paranoid about governmental intrusion upon their rights and liberties, and the belief that guns are essential to liberty is embedded into this innate mistrust of governmental authority.

In today's times, there is also a definite "culture of fear" in the United States. The news media undoubtedly plays a major role in creating and maintaining this pervasive fear. Part of it is a quest for ratings: sensationalized stories about horrific crimes tend to grab people's attention. The other part of it is that the major news networks are often under the control of wealthy political figures who want to keep Americans in a permanent state of fear, because frightened people are easy to manipulate.

As a result, a lot of Americans seem to have the idea that criminals are lurking in every shadow, waiting for the right moment to attack, rob and murder law-abiding citizens. While this fear may be justified in areas where crime is rampant, in most cases it is not. Yet the fear seems to persist regardless of local crime rates.

Answer 2

Because it's in our Second Ammendment of the American Constitution, every American has the right to posess and bear arms, It's been a Constitutional right since America was formed. It's a right mainly for hunting or self defense, however, in most states, you must obtain a permit to legally carry a gun, as to make sure you are not a criminal who might misuse a gun.

Answer 3

The Constitution. 2nd amendment:

"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 Constitution. 2nd amendment:

"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."

Answer 4

The classic argument is the 2nd Ammendment, which gives people the "right to bear arms". This 'right' existed long before the Bill of Rights - it was part of the Revolution. Guns were valuable and revolutionaries kept guns hidden so they could fight and defend themselves. Sometimes the 2nd Ammendment has been interpreted as a "Doomsday Measure" - the Federal Government could break the Constitution by stopping elections but it could never confiscate firearms.

Today, many people own guns for self-defence to guard their home and/or as representation of their freedom. These arguments are rarely understood in the United Kingdom and other European countries. They may also use them for sports or simply collect them.

Answer 5

All Americans possess the right to bear arms because this right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"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."

Most people will incorrectly state that this amendment refers to the rights of state militias to bear arms. In contrast, the amendment says nothing about militias having this right, but instead explicitly refers to, "the right of the people." This was done to allow Americans to easily begin a violent overthrow of government, such as the recently won Revolutionary War, to prevent the government from infringing upon citizens rights.

Answer 6

Even though this question seems to be very simple and straight forward, the answer is considerably more complicated and requires a closer look at the question itself. The use of the words "U.S. citizens" within the question implies that a citizen has more rights than a "person" who happens to be within the U.S. lawfully. Although this implication is accurate, it is barely so.

The difference in rights between a U.S. citizen and a non-citizen who is lawfully within the U.S. is minimal. Admittedly, the Constitution does extend certain benefits only to citizens. For instance, Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 provides, inter alia, that "[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ..." Also, only U.S. citizens may vote in elections for federal or state officers. However, the rights guaranteed within the Bill of Rights are guaranteed to persons, to the accused, and to the "Owner" regardless of whether they are American Citizens.

Now, to answer the question. The right to carry a gun is provided by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as expounded upon by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"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."

In 2008, the right to possess a handgun for lawful purposes was specifically recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as applying to persons within "federal enclaves". District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.CT 2783, (U.S., 2008). However, what others will not tell you is that, within this very case, the U.S. Supreme Court also declared that 2nd Amendment protection applies only to "the sorts of weapons ... in common use at the time." Id. at 627, 2817. The Supreme Court also declared that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places ... or laws imposing conditions and qualification on the commercial sale of arms" are still perfectly constitutional. Id.

Later, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a different case that the 2nd Amendment has been "incorporated" by virtue of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 3025, 3050, 130 S.CT 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (U.S., 2010). In this particular context, the term "incorporation" means that the right in question ALSO protects the specified party from contrary action taken by A STATE or by AN AGENT OF A STATE. ==================================================================================== ====================================================================================

The constitution and its amendments do not giverights. Rights are given by the Creator. That is an important point to bear in mind: any time you are discussing rights under law, you are talking about rights that can be taken away by law. Unalienable rights cannot be taken away by law but, some legislators will try. Please read the link to Breitbart's article on the same.

The 2nd amendment under its original interpretation gives you the right to own and carry firearms.

More information:

• "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

• "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

• "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

• "One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

• "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407, writing to his teenaged nephew.
• Also note: Thomas Jefferson was the only president to walk to his government offices, and spend the entire day with his sidearm visibly displayed.

• False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

• "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

• Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? [sic]-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

• "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

• "The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

• That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

• The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage. -- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

• The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. -- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

NOTE: Links are provided under this question to verify the disputed quotes of Thomas Jefferson; These quotes are in context, IE: you must read the whole thing to understand what the subject-matter is.

Answer 7

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution declares that "a well regulated militia" is "necessary" in order to maintain a free state, and as an explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Answer 8

No amendment gives the right. The 2nd amendment protects the right.

Answer 9

The second amendment.