Amazon.com Widgets
  • We need them in everyday life.

    If someone tries to harm us or threaten us we have our weapon to protect our self, but if we didn't have our guns then we would be completely helpless in this situation. Even the strongest person or biggest person can't really do much with a gun pointed at them.

  • We need them in everyday life.

    If someone tries to harm us or threaten us we have our weapon to protect our self, but if we didn't have our guns then we would be completely helpless in this situation. Even the strongest person or biggest person can't really do much with a gun pointed at them.

  • Guns should still be used, just higher background checks.

    I am a proud Democratic Clinton supporter, and I still think we need our guns. There are higher crime rates now, and while most of the criminals use guns, if we just do higher background checks, or stop children from getting guns, and things like that, than the people that won't rob banks and kill people can't get the guns. The gun doesn't kill the person, the person does. A human cannot make a bench without tools, and a gun is just a tool for killing. A serial killer could do just a little less damage with a knife instead of a gun. And if we ban guns, well, when we banned alcohol, people started illegally buying beer and wine and selling alcohol too. People will just continually buy guns off the black market if we ban it. Someone insane will not get a gun if we do background checks, but a hunter or a person who wants to protect himself in the inner city should be able to get a gun. And plus, most gun deaths are suicides, and most of those are children. If we stop children and people who might have suicidal thoughts from getting guns, than the gun deaths in America will drastically decrease.

  • The second amendment is valid.

    This is because we, as people, shall always have the rights to own and carry our own firearm. We should be able to protect ourselves if necessary. We need to be able to say that we can protect our home, ourselves, and most importantly, we should be able to protect our family.

  • 555555555555555 5555555 555555

    *5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55

  • 555555555555555 5555555 555555

    *5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 55

  • The second amendment will always apply.

    The right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and home invaders shall not be infringed under constitutional law. May these rights be infringed the citizens will rise against its own government and use the right to defend themselves from those who wish to lower the standard of life that they have today.

  • The right to defense comes after the right to think.

    If the second amendment no longer applies because of modern guns, then the first amendment doesn't apply to the internet, social media, TV, radio, or any other thing that wasn't in existence in the late 19th century. Yet it does, the constitution doesn't just stop applying because of modern technology, it's the constitution. The first amendment gives us the freedom to think, believe and live, the second amendment gives us the right to defend those freedoms guaranteed previously.
    "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. "
    Notice the comma after "State" separating the ideas.

  • Yes the 2nd Amendment still applies

    Because if they never made the 2nd amendment the hunters would have nothing to shot the animals with. Ain't no way you can kill an animal with a rock just because David killed Goliath with 1 rock doesn't mean a hunter would kill an animal with 1 rock so there for the 2nd amendment is still necessary

  • For us as civilians, yes.

    We could all sit here and say we need our AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, ACOG scope, flashlight, laser pointer, and a custom upper receiver to defend ourselves from home invaders. Don't get me wrong I mean hey that would be a bit easier. But we could realistically get the job done/ scare them off with your average shotgun. Now, with that being said I will list a couple of reasons to the best of my knowledge on why it should be around. Yes house invaders is a big deal and if they knew you had a gun in your house they may reconsider to someone who doesn't with that being said a large number of guns used by criminals are illegally obtained in the first place. Even on top of that not even 20 percent of crimes are caused by rifles, all handguns, illegally obtained. It is simple logic if you were concealing a weapon you would want the biggest bang for size you can hide. So banning rifles would not change much at all. Another reason on why I think it should stay is because we need a voice against tyranny of the government, if you argue against me saying that an armed civilian with a semi-automatic rifle would not stand a chance against all of the technology of our military you are right. But with that being said it would make our government hesitate more than us being completely unarmed. For example the honey badger is not too big of an animal, even a bear will refuse to mess with them and even run from them. Could the bear win? Yes. Would it be worth it in the end? Probably not. With all of this being said you would have to realize most of our patriots who serve in the military wouldn't even stand against our government telling them they need to take our guns. Even with all of that I would like to add that our fully capable military could not defeat an Arabic militia for more than a decade, and we struggled against the Vietnamese so badly we had to pull out. What people don't realize is that civilians do not have to do a straight up forward battle. Now moving on to my next topic is statistics. Oh boy left wing people love their statistics, regardless of how inaccurate they are or if they are even true. Like in Australia, statistics have shown that gun violence has gone done, for one, this is only gun violence. Not normal violence which has risen, but as well they made what they would call an act of a crime a lot less strict to manipulate the statistics. Since we are talking about how other countries banning guns and how it has worked for them lets talk about how its working in Mexico. I think El Chapo, leader of the drug cartel, would agree that banning guns was a great thing for his movement.

  • No, the second amendment no longer applies.

    When the second amendment was written ,the military and civilians had similar firearms; the amendments man purpose was to help people defend themselves against corrupt government, but with the advancements in military technology and spending since World War Two this has become impossible. An AR 15 doesn't stand a chance against a city destroying nuclear missile and a 9mm cannot take down a multibillion dollar F22 Raptor. With the Us spending over $400 billion a year on the military the thought of civilian defense against it is becoming futile.

  • No, the second amendment is no longer relevant.

    The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was written hundreds of years ago, at a time when there was no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the challenges we currently face. I believe that if they were around today to see the problems we're having with guns, they wouldn't have a problem with enacting serious gun control laws.

  • Law abiding citizens

    Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen........ Until they use a gun in the commission of a crime. The more "law abiding" gun owners there are the more likely they are to use that gun in the commission of a crime. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

  • The second amendment does not apply today.

    The framers of the constitution did not anticipate modern fire arms. In the time of the foundation of the government, guns were slow and inaccurate. Also, people genuinely needed guns to protect themselves from wild animals in rural parts of the country. Today, the second amendment is anachronistic and it should be repealed.

  • No it doesn't

    The second amendment just makes people do what they want. They believe that with this right you can go around with your gun with you. You don't need a gun in your daily routine! Nobody is using it for protection but they're using it to kill innocent people and I know that's not everyone but without amendment 2 I know a lot of shootings and deaths wouldn't happen.

  • No it doesn't

    The second amendment just makes people do what they want. They believe that with this right you can go around with your gun with you. You don't need a gun in your daily routine! Nobody is using it for protection but they're using it to kill innocent people and I know that's not everyone but without amendment 2 I know a lot of shootings and deaths wouldn't happen.

  • The second amendment....

    The second amendment should be removed off the constitution because America already has a the world's greatest Army and protection system. Guns in a way are like nuclear weapons people threaten that they have them. Which in many cases causes mass panic. People don't need machine guns or hand guns. Even if you make loser gun laws more people will own them. Most likely tensions will break and more shootings and stress between gangs and stuff...... If you think about the amount of mass shootings we have had you can blame loose guns laws. Even if you give people without mental illness a gun they control wether or not they pull the trigger it doesn't make a difference. There is a reason why we have armed forces people.

  • Muskets against tyranny or automatic weapons against democratically elected government.

    The world has changed drastically since the Revolution and the passing of the Second Amendment. If people wish to join "a well regulated militia," then perhaps there is a justification to have weapons to perform their duties. If the reason people feel guns are necessary is for protection, they should do some research. People who own guns are no more safe than people who don't, and they don't shot themselves, like gun owners do.

  • It does not

    The 2nd amendment was written to form militias to defend from a goverment take over, or an invasion of another country. A government take over is not likely this day in age and we have the military to defend the country. It's time to take guns out of the hands of citizens and stop hiding behind a right that no longer applies. It's not black and white and the NRA and these crazy gun nutjobs would like you to believe. My life and the lives of my friends family and other people I care about and live are more important to me then your 2nd amendment.

  • 2nd Amendment Does not Give Rights to People...

    ...It gives a right for us to have a "well regulated militia." However, since the United States military is socialized and militia's are no longer needed, the right of the citizens to carry guns is also no longer needed. It's not a right for individual gun ownership...But rather a right for the country to form a military.


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