1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Greeley [361]
2 years ago
8

Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?

History
2 answers:
Vladimir [108]2 years ago
6 0
Some support it for safety reasons
EleoNora [17]2 years ago
5 0

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

You might be interested in
Who lead the first Europeans to what is now the United States mainland?
tiny-mole [99]

Answer:

B

Explanation:

plz give brainliest

7 0
3 years ago
How did railroads influence modern business practices?
NikAS [45]

Correct answer choice is :


<h2>A) By forming corporate boards </h2><h2 /><h3>Explanation:</h3><h3 /><h3 />

The beginning of the railroads as a theory takes us back to 17th century England when rails were first laid down to overcome friction in moving heavily loaded trucks which would otherwise cut deep ruts. They named them gravity roads and they made their American appearance in 1764 for military goals at the Niagara portage in Lewistown New York, built by Captain John Montresor, a British engineer, and mapmaker.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How many years did the mikrokosmos as one of the exceptional works of bartok last​
otez555 [7]

Answer:

I think the answer is 13

7 0
3 years ago
During the late nineteenth century, the equal protection clause was?
Elden [556K]

During the late nineteenth century, the equal protection clause was severely limited in scope by the supreme court.

The Fourteenth amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection. Equal protection suggests a nation govern impartially—no longer draw distinctions between people completely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.

The equal protection Clause is part of the first phase of the Fourteenth change to the American constitution. The clause took impact in 1868.

The equal protection Clause of the 14th amendment prohibits states from denying any individual inside its jurisdiction the equal safety of the law. In different phrases, the laws of a state must treat an individual in an identical manner as other humans in comparable conditions and occasions.

Learn more about the Clause here brainly.com/question/2232307

#SPJ4

8 0
1 year ago
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did not get the support of their newspaper, the Washington post, and were fired for their invest
creativ13 [48]
The answer is False.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein actually received great support from the Washington Post on this topic. Their first story about the Watergate break-in was just the beginning, as they would go on to write countless articles about President Nixon and his connection to his event. This made Woodward and Bernstein household names and also made the Washington Post a wildly popular newspaper.
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Which was the conqueror of the Incas in South America?
    10·2 answers
  • Why did home ownership increase after world war ii?
    5·2 answers
  • A religious scholar believes that the universe is so complex that it could not be created and directed by a single god. Which of
    7·2 answers
  • To what extent was the continental system responsible for the down fall of Napoleon Bonaparte ​
    10·1 answer
  • PLEASE HURRY I’LL MARK BRAINLY Which of the Earth's biomes covers over 70% of the Earth's surface?
    9·2 answers
  • The two assemblies that made up the Roman senate were
    9·2 answers
  • How did Constantine become the emperor of the Roman Empire?
    7·2 answers
  • Who and how did the United States aid in China during World War 2 ?
    10·1 answer
  • Why did Madison favor giving the larger states representation according to populatIon?
    11·1 answer
  • "In 500 words or more, talk about the idea/realities of All Black Towns: how they began, what they were like, where they were, w
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!