The founding fathers had this because they felt the need to for protection if the British ever came they could form their militia. Today, this amendment and the debate is heavily influenced by all our hunters out there. People these days own a gun for sport. I'm not saying that's wrong, but the way guns were precieved then and now are vastly different. I understand and support the need for security and protection, but it's beyond that. I'm not saying get rid of it all together, but revisal. Obviously with all the crime we have, we need to ensure the right people have them to protect themselves and get it out of the wrong. More checks and more education. The dangers the fathers forsaw still exist, but isn't the root motivation for keeping it.
I believe that everyone has the right to bear arms yet we should restrict what arms we are talking about. Nobody in their right minds, except for soldiers, should be using military based arms in any circumstance. There is no need for the average Joe to be using them in public or in the private of their own homes. We need to stop giving these reckless people these dangerous military weapons and them injuring themselves and others.
The 2nd Amendment was created after the American Revolution, where the American's fought the British. The right to bear arms was a way of security to reassure the American people that they can protect themselves. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment has changed drastically, now that guns are used as a sport or for hunting. I'm not saying that we should completely remove guns from the American people, I just believe that the Amendment is really outdated for the modern uses.
When the 2nd amendment was put in place the average gun was not a particularly useful weapon. It took ages to reload, had low accuracy, small range, and required a large number of men to operate them efficiently. Had the founding fathers anticipated the rapid evolution of the technology behind guns it is safe to assume that would have thought twice about putting it in the constitution. Guns have become a social impediment rather than the safeguard they were intended to be.
No other nation on earth has such constitutional protection for firearms. It's absolute lunacy! The US has the highest murder rate in the developed world. If it's not due to gun ownership, then it's due to poverty and deprivation, which cannot be resolved properly due to the impotence of the US political system. What a shambles!
An amendment to our constitution should only be revised if the purpose for it has changed. The 2nd Amendment was written for the sole purpose of keeping guns IN the hands of American citizens as a means for self defense, and a safeguard against a tyrannical government. Those dangers still exist today, and therefore the protection against those dangers should also.
The Founders/Framers of the Constitution consciously created the "right to bear arms" amendment to free the citizens from a tyrannical gov't. Might I remind you that the Founders were afraid of a powerful gov't. Throughout history, the times when guns have been taken from a country's citizens by the gov't have not been noble ones. The biggest example being Nazi Germany before WW2. The Fascist Nazi regime did this so that the Jewish people and other citizens who would resist their rule would not be able to defend themselves. We all know that this worked for the Nazis. Pro gun control supporters love to use the recent shootings and massacres as a reason that gun control is paramount, however I would like to point out that there have also been mass murder situations where the criminal has used every day objects like a knife. I would also like to point out that some of these massacres could have been stopped if a teacher or worker at the scene was armed. To instill gun control and revise the second amendment is to leave yourself and others vulnerable to the Gov't, murderers, and in a rare case, a Russian or Chinese invasion (This is a joke, everybody chill). Gun rights is and always will be something that makes America, America.
Because the bible says so. O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Let alone, the second amendment was firmly based upon spreading the power. If the government took our guns, we cannot fight back, which then all the power is in the hands of one government which can be a forceful dictatorship. Take a look at Cuba, with very strict guns laws (as well as other laws), their people are deeply dependant on their government; when people rely on their government so much, they seem to lose motivation, which results in a decreasing economy. Not to mention, in Adolf Hitler’s (and other ruthless governments) plan for world control, gun constriction was part of his needs. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing,” states the infamous Adolf Hitler. Needless to say, gun control will weaken American citizens.
Without guns, we can’t protect ourselves from any crime. Importantly, by having access to firearms, people can shoot back at criminals. In school shootings, store robberies, or even terrorist manslaughter, people can protect themselves and can kill the criminal before any more damage happens. Additionally, the police can’t be 100% on time always. Law enforcement might be busy with other crimes and unable to save everyone from each other. Using common sense, criminals are less likely to attack knowing others have firearms. If criminals know people could shoot back, the crime will be unappealing to the suspect. Citizens are safer with guns, rather than without.
Many people think banning guns will decrease crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and more. According to Bill Whittle, the United States ranks, by far, most firearms per capita worldwide, yet only ranks 111th for intentional homicide. Additionally, cities in America that have strict gun laws have higher murder rates rather than the cities that have fewer gun laws which have lower murder rates. Also, countries that have banned guns in the past, such as Germany, Cambodia, and China, turned against their citizens causing mass murder in their countries. So why not ban guns? The answer is simply because banning guns actually surrenders power to the irresponsible governments and to bloodthirsty criminals.
If you give a person in an altered mind state a gun, he will use it against others. If you give him a knife, a bow or every other weapon he will do the same. But, why instead of making him do the same act with a different weapon you (i am European) cure him for FREE? That should resolve the situation.
The 2nd Amendment is a doomsday provision; we should never need it, but unfortunately tyranny is only one misinformed vote away. I much prefer a dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery hoping not to have my freedoms further trampled in the name of (insert your adjective here) justice. I find it fascinating that our politicians fear our guns. I'm glad they do so they think twice on trampling our rights. Even if they decide to try to confiscate our guns, there will be such a bloodbath that even contemplating such a move will prevent it. Those founding fathers knew that without the people being able to defend themselves that they would be easily enslaved by a popular tyrant. Winston Churchill said democracy in the Western World was 2 wolves and a heavily armed sheep deciding on what was for dinner; how has this changed based off the history of the 20th century?
We have the basic ground rules for America: the Constitution. We
cannot change it. I want my rights. Nobody will every make it better. We need those ground rules to keep the gov in check. Guns are our right as long as the military has them. If we start giving up or changing our rights now we wont have soon wont have any.