Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes its the beginning to the new world order

    Its just a gateway to start changing it to whats better for them and not us the people! We've lost are roots its the government for the government. It's no more we the people for the people and its just one more way for us as a mass to be controlled

  • Unfortunately yes it is.

    If we keep giving ground like this, we will one day wake up to find nothing left.

    It's nice that the Liberals think that this will save lives, but this isn't Europe where laws are obeyed. Here, a law is looked at by many as more of an obstacle than anything else, and example being prohibition.

  • Yes, it is probably going to be changed

    If by "danger" you mean that it may be updated and changed, then yes, it's in danger. The constitution is a living document--it was designed that way. As times change and society grows, the amendments change and grow with them. It is the way it should work. As we see more and more of these shootings, of course the basic idea that everyone deserves weaponry will come under scrutiny.

  • Yes, the Second Amendment is in danger. It is my belief that all the recent public shootings of innocent people, places this Amendment at risk.

    President Obama has wanted to take away the right to bear arms since his first term as President. In light of the recent shootings, especially the tragedy involving the school children, talk is rampant about tighter gun control. The President feels the only way to solve the issue of random shootings is to take away the right to bear arms.

  • If the Government wishes to take our guns away, they they MUST TAKE AWAY ALL OF THEM...

    ... And here is an explanation of what I mean. If the government wishes to take away our rights to own and bear arms, then they also must take away ALL the firearms from Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement. Once people do not own firearms, then there is no reason for law enforcement entities of all tiers to have firearms either. This also extends out to the Military, but in a difference sense; the US Military should be barred from using weapons domestically OUTSIDE of their military bases, meaning they can use them and stock them in their bases, and use them when there is a national emergency that puts our country at risk of military invasion, or to conduct Military operations outside of the US. Its simple as that.

    The Second Amendment was given to us by our founding fathers, and it clearly states upon the Amendment that "Such a right SHALL NOT be infringed upon.". Going through the judges picked by some Democratic-Socialist-Communist, or a Totalitarian-Autocrat-Republican, to modify or take away our rights to bear arms IS INDEED INFRINGEMENT. It also CLEARLY states in the Amendment that citizens have the right to rise up and bear arms against a government that has gone corrupt. Infringe upon our given rights, and we all will consider the federal government corrupt, and in need of strict reformation by the citizens, not our greedy and shady politicians with ulterior motives.

    Long story short, the Government won't risk a SECOND CIVIL WAR with it's citizens. And even if they do, the citizens will fight fiercely, and WIN.

  • IF the Government wants to take our guns, they must take ALL OF THEM...

    ... And here is an explanation of what I mean. If the government wishes to take away our rights to own and bear arms, then they also must take away ALL the firearms from Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement. Once people do not own firearms, then there is no reason for law enforcement entities of all tiers to have firearms either. This also extends out to the Military, but in a difference sense; the US Military should be barred from using weapons domestically OUTSIDE of their military bases, meaning they can use them and stock them in their bases, and use them when there is a national emergency that puts our country at risk of military invasion, or to conduct Military operations outside of the US. Its simple as that.

    The Second Amendment was given to us by our founding fathers, and it clearly states upon the Amendment that "Such a right SHALL NOT be infringed upon.". Going through the judges picked by some Democratic-Socialist-Communist, or a Totalitarian-Autocrat-Republican, to modify or take away our rights to bear arms IS INDEED INFRINGEMENT. It also CLEARLY states in the Amendment that citizens have the right to rise up and bear arms against a government that has gone corrupt. Infringe upon our given rights, and we all will consider the federal government corrupt, and in need of strict reformation by the citizens, not our greedy and shady politicians with ulterior motives.

    Long story short, the Government won't risk a SECOND CIVIL WAR with it's citizens. And even if they do, the citizens will fight fiercely, and WIN.

  • Come and take it.

    If the government comes after our guns, they will have one hell of a time trying to get them from us. Political leaders can talk all they want about how taking our firearms will fix our problems with shootings, but when it comes down to it, people who are willing to kill innocent people with assault rifles will be willing to take the actions necessary to obtain these rifles, no matter how illegal.

  • Bulletproof Society

    The second amendment is one of the most important amendments to the Constitution. It not only gives us the right to bear arms, but it gives us a feeling of safety. Taking away this right will upset many citizens, which will make an unhappy America. In addition to this, even if you take away this right, people will still have guns. It will only be another thing that law officials will need to enforce. Drugs are illegal, and yet people still buy and use them. The danger of guns lies strictly in the individual. There are people who should not have a gun for reasons such as mental disability. The right to bear arms is in no danger, and neither is the second amendment.

  • The Supreme Court has already changed the spirit of the law to make it bulletproof.

    The 2nd amendment is now bulletproof. The original spirit was the right to bear arms in times where militia's were needed. The supreme court changed it so there is no need for the militia. They stand by the right to bear arms to defend and hunt. The laws against the current acts will focus on how people get those guns, and what kind of guns people can get. People will still have the right to bear arms, and defend their homes, they just will have to do it without a military issue assault rifle.

  • I wish

    Gun nuts know from history that any time there is a hint of "guns do bad things sometimes" in the air they can throw a fit and scream at the top of their lungs until the opposition backs down. They don't care. This and all the mass shootings before it, they are worth it to these people if that's what's needed to keep your guns. We cannot change when that mentality is still so common.


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