Amazon.com Widgets
  • No American has ever had a right to bear arms

    Not here for the debate. Book coming out. Only 7 key framers knew what the second was really for. The rest of the delegates just read what they wanted to be. Benjamin franklin crafted the 2nd amendment in the year 1780. This is new history. The 2nd isnt going anywhere, but its current understanding is simply the stuff of myth. What these men did, they had to do. How they planned to undo it is astonishing. The founders are back, and with them will be revealed the final legacy of the United States Constitution.

  • Have the rights to bear arms

    You should have the right to bear arms. It is needed for protection, hunting, and target shooting. It is not the gun that is doing the harm, most people who miss-use guns have not been properly trained. You must have a carry permit to carry a gun around. You should have the right to carry a gun or own a gun in america

  • Something needs to be done

    The answer to this question depends on whether you take a loose or strict interpretation of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is "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." There is an argument to be made that guns can be limited to people in local militias but then again militias simply do not exist in the same capacity they did back in the 1700s. I'm not saying that guns need to be banned. I'm simply say that there is room to create more gun control. America is one of the only modern "western" countries to have such a large issue with gun control. There have been over 300 shootings this year 2016 alone, and the year isn't even over yet! Canada in comparison has had less than 5 shootings this year. Another thing to consider about the 2nd amendment is what kinds of weaponry it allows. When the Bill of Rights was written in 1791, the only guns they had shot one bullet at a time and took a long time to load. Nowadays people can walk into a Walmart and buy a semi-automatic weapon that has a much larger capacity to cause havoc. And yes I am perfectly aware that guns cannot cause damage on their own but what is there to stop someone with bad intentions from buying a gun? Not a whole lot. At the very least people buying guns need to go through a much more thorough background check. We always mourn when a major mass shooting occurs in America but should we really be shocked when these things happen? It's tragic how common shootings have become. Think of how many lives have been thrown away because of the selfish or delusional acts of people who should not have had access to semi-automatic weapons. Either way the Constitution 's wording is loose enough for people to interpret its meaning in either a pro-gun or pro-gun control way thus allowing for the possibility of gun control.

  • We Need gun control!

    Almost 40 people die everyday from the result of a gun. More than 30,000 people die from a gun in one year. Guns have the power to take away someone's life. A life. For what? Money? What could possible be more precious than life? Gun control laws don't want to take away guns. That's not practical. Gun control laws only want to make it harder to get a gun, so that people may use it more responsibly. These laws aren't only wanted, they are needed.

  • We Need gun control!

    Almost 40 people die everyday from the result of a gun. More than 30,000 people die from a gun in one year. Guns have the power to take away someone's life. A life. For what? Money? What could possible be more precious than life? Gun control laws don't want to take away guns. That's not practical. Gun control laws only want to make it harder to get a gun, so that people may use it more responsibly. These laws aren't only wanted, they are needed.

  • Yes it does

    Yes it does The second amendment states, "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." People still have the right to have a gun, even if that right is regulated. Americans still have freedom of speech even though they can't yell fire in a theater.

  • Lllllllll n n

    Lllllllll
    m m m m m mmmmmmmmmmm m m m mm mm mm m m m m m mmm m m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

  • Original Second Amendment

    The founding fathers intended this law so that the people would be able to rise up against the government if necessary. Now, we'd need tanks and drones and nuclear warheads to even take on the United States Government. Should we arm all civilians with such weapons? Absolutely not. We shouldn't treat guns any differently.

  • Yes it does.

    This world is dangerous, weak gun control laws are destroying this world in about the last twenty years there ha been about sixty mass shootings, and yet supporters are still con-gun control. When a society doesnt bat an eyelash at having about thirty little children massacred, we all as a society need help,l

  • Where do we draw the line?

    Where to draw the line with respect to arms regulation is a subject rational people can discuss. Anyone who believes that people should be allowed to carry machine guns, RPGs, grenades, and even nuclear weapons, is just not playing with a full deck of cards.
    Some people have a practically religious interpretation of the second amendment and refuse to recognize the supreme court's rulings.

  • Support the second amendment get ready of gun control!

    I agree so far with the no's! I support the second adendment and if there is law right now on gun control there shouldn't be! Because it doesn't say here ur hand gun and getting ready of rifle and what kind of guns u can own! It doesn't say that! Plus it doesn't say gun control on it!

  • It supports citizen military service. So go join your state militia.

    It supports state militias against too much centralized control, not personal rights to collect arsenals. The second Amendment was both a reaction against the british seizure of the state militias' weapons in the Powder Alarm as well as a move by the anti-federalists to curb federal power. It was only interpreted as a right to individual militarization in 2008.V http://killingthebreeze.com/we-the-people-the-truth-about-americas-deadly-gun-boom/

  • It supports citizen military service. So go join your state militia.

    It supports state militias against too much centralized control, not personal rights to collect arsenals. The second Amendment was both a reaction against the british seizure of the state militias' weapons in the Powder Alarm as well as a move by the anti-federalists to curb federal power. It was only interpreted as a right to individual militarization in 2008.V http://killingthebreeze.com/we-the-people-the-truth-about-americas-deadly-gun-boom/

  • No on gun control

    The 2A should not be infringed ... Gun control does just that, period.
    For those that make the excuse that armed citizens couldn't stop the US Military. Just for a moment read the News headlines and apply it to the topic. The Syrian rebels with limited heavy weapons has been a taking territory against better equipped and train government forces. It is the WILL of the armed oppressed that continues to survive for years.
    1. Our military are volunteers not draftee. They sworn an oath first to US Constitution not to a political zealot.
    2. Our military, on their own, has won a war since 1926, American Indian war and the Indians.
    State side Military bases nearly totally rely on the civilian populace for basic support operations. Only those Military bases in Blue State might maintain State support. But where are the major of the combat and training centers? Mainly in Red States.
    3. There are more armed civilians then the military, even if you include the navy and marines. Not to mention, the armed citizens have much more practical experience with their firearm then the total military population.
    4. The armed citizen population a many more seasoned veterans and retiree then currently in the military stateside.

    In many states, body armor is not illegal to own, and likely better quality then what the current military.

    If the gun control zealots keep pushing, the SCOTUS might declare Ammosexuals a protected class ...Then the Gun Control Activists would be Screwed .. Bi time.

  • Bill of rights

    The Bill of Rights tell is that American Citizens have the right to possess a gun in the 2nd Amendment. As the military is creating more and more lethal weapons, I understand why most people would like to ban guns. But only the small handguns are legal now, thanks to Otis McDonald. Because of this I do not think that the states should have a BAN, but there should be more security when purchasing firearms.

  • It is wrong and bad

    It is wrong. And and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and it is bad.

  • No it does not

    Thanks to owr founding fathers and the second amendment witch states that we have the right to bare arms there should be no gun control because this is a free country and we have rights. If you put a gun controll then you will be defying the constitution witch was created so that every one will be equal. When ever people who hate guns think about them they always think about killing but guns don't kill people do.

  • No it doesn't!

    The Founders took the time to make sure the words they used in the Constitution were what they wanted them to be. They gave the people the "right to bear arms," they could have said pistols, muskets or rifles, but they said arms. They knew things would change over time and didn't want the amendment to restrict what may be developed in the future. This means we have the right to have knives, swords, pistols, rifles or anything else we want to defend ourselves from others or the government.

  • No

    Today, there is no military draft at all. The U.S. Army is made up of a mix of full-time and part-time professional soldiers who are trained well, and compensated for their service. Furthermore, the U.S. Armed Forces have not fought a single battle on home soil since the end of the American Civil War in 1865. Clearly, a well-regulated civilian militia is no longer a military necessity. Does the second clause of the Second Amendment still apply even if the first clause, providing its rationale, is no longer meaningful?

  • No, it most certainly does not.

    I find that most people struggle to understand why the 2nd Amendment exists. Most don't realize that it isn't for hunting! The 2nd Amendment protects the people against tyranny, whether it be from invasion or from their own government. Giving the government the power to regulate firearms is contradicting the very reason that we have the 2nd Amendment! I believe that the founders were very explicit in saying the word 'militia,' meaning 'civilian army.' The militia is a group of patriots meant to protect the people of this country if we were to be invaded, or if the president were to declare Martial Law (as was practically legalized in the NDAA). Meaning that if the president were to declare Martial Law, the people would be armed just the same as the military, which would prevent the president/king/dictator from restricting the freedom of the people of the United States.
    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.