It has been said by many here and it is sooo goddam obvious, it was built when guns were single shot and took a minute to reload. There has been enough deaths. Get real and adapt the laws so that multi shot weapons are banned. No one needs a high powered weapon . The USA looks like a Hicksville bunch of towns, where tradition needs to get into the 21st century and adapt. How can soo many be in favour of a right to bear arms??? I sure do hope that the next generation sets the standards higher. I believe they will. Enough.
Pretty sure only an idiot would think our founding fathers would be in favor of putting machine guns in the hands of anyone. These are weapons of war. What happens 50 years from now if we have lazer guns that can wipe out an entire city block. Will it be ok for people to bare those arms then? The constitution says you can bare arms... So it MUST be ok right?!?!? Give me a break.
Dasdsadsdasdsadsdsadsddsa and no lskdasdsa sadsasadassadsadasdfdg gfdg dfgfdg fgsdfdsfdsas sadasd sdas sda sda sda sdasdasdads sd a asdsad asdsa fefd dsad sad sa sas adsad sad sad asd asdsa dsd ssad sd asd asd asd asd asd sd asds adds asd asd sd asd asd asd as adds asd asd asd asd asdsd a
Back when our Founding Fathers were alive, you couldn't kill hundreds of people in thirty seconds flat, and you couldn't reload a gun in seconds. Guns were highly inaccurate, took one to two minutes to load, and held small amounts of ammo. The right to bear arms will never expire, as people will always need to defend themselves. However, the weapons we have today and the weapons we had during the making of the Bill of Rights are vastly different. Therefore, the arms mentioned in the right to bear arms are outdated and the right to bear arms shouldn't be taken away, but revised.
The 2nd Amendment was written back in the 18th century so that states had the right to form a militia in case the federal government became tyrannical. Back then, everyone had rifles and muskets which took anywhere between 30 seconds to 2 minutes to load. Nowadays we have semiautomatic weapons with 100 round magazines. These are called ASSAULT rifles, meaning they are primarily used for ASSAULT. The second ammendment has been broadly interpreted to include these weapons, which serve no purpose other than killing mass amounts of people or compensating for one's insignificant penis. The 2nd ammendment needs to be updated to exclude these killing machines.
Are you people crazy? You really believe you can live in a civilised world creating a peaceful proactive society while you all going around with your six shooters strapped to your waits, crazy people, it is about time america revised many of it's ideas and laws, it must surely becoming clear to you all that your opinions and credibility on the world stage count for nothing, from the outside your country looks like a nightmare cowboy western, it is your gun ho attitude along with your Christian fundamentalism that has not only created problems for your selves but for the rest of the world. Yes you should all grow up and put your toys away
The first argument is an analysis of the specific language inside the Second Amendment. The key phrase to look at is the second phase, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the operative clause securing the right to the people. Operative clauses are clauses that secure a specific right to a recipient. The recipient of this phrase is the people. This can also be seen in the First Amendment which states, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The first phrase, which the opposition to bearing arms and four supreme court justices confuse, is a justification clause. A justification clause is the explanation as to why the right is being secured. The first phrase states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." It does not in any way solely give the right to bear arms to a limited military unit. It is also important to define what a militia was at the time of the founding. A militia, according to the Militia Act of 1792 states, "that each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years." The present would include people of all races in the age range appropriate to our health standards and life expectancies. This shows how it is not just a limited professional military unit, but the majority of the citizenry. Concluding, one can look at the Second Amendment and clearly see that the second phrase is the operative clause, confirming the people's right to bear arms and that the first phrase is the justification clause, explaining why the right is affirmed. It is not the other way around.
The founding fathers included the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution for reasons of protection. While it is true that guns help me feel protected from dangerous animals and dangerous criminals, it is also true that guns in the hands of civilians make me feel safer from the government. The founding fathers were aware that government can become oppressive and that government may take over the country. If citizens are armed, the government knows there are limits to what citizens will submit.
I do not advocate revolution at this time. But I believe the founding fathers included the second amendment to make revolution possible as another check in our checks and balance system of government.
The right to defend my self from rapists and killers is not outdated. No matter the year we still need self defense. Also we need guns to defend our selves from oppressive governments. I'm not saying this will happen today but in 49 years will our government become oppressive? Maybe.
People and citizens are born with rights. Rights never expire. Therefore a "right" cannot be outdated by definition. In addition: "Rights" do not require justification. Limitation of rights require valid and good justifications. To be "outdated" is not a valid justification to limit or to suspend a right. With such an easy procedure all rights will be gone tomorrow.
The right to bear arms or own a gun is not an outdated idea. To remove a citizen’s basic right to own a gun is nothing short of disarming the American citizen and putting then at the mercy of those who are left with weaponry, which includes the military, the police and anyone who is willing to break the law, in other words criminals. Having a gun in the house is not a crime if it registered and stowed away properly. It is what is done with a weapon that should be more of a concern to law enforcement. Let us keep our rights and you deal with the wrong doers.
No, the right to bear arms is not outdated, because the right to near arms is needed more than ever now that the federal government is bigger than ever. We need to make sure that the federal government does not become oppressive. With weapons, the government still fears the people.
We have this right here in the United States of America to bare arms against people and for our protection as well. However I do believe that there should be some type of regulation to the control of guns to protect people here in the United States of America and else where.
I do not believe the right to bear arms is outdated. The world is not safe and some people find solace in weapons. These guns equal freedom to some Americans and they should be allowed to have what they have always owned. Having guns is not an outdated concept. I haven't noticed a perfect world spring up where they may not be necessary.