If we lived in a position where arms were not readily available, it would be difficult at best to defend against an authoritarian rule in our country. Once the people of the United States have nothing to defend themselves with, our oppressive, greedy, corrupt government will be much more active in suppressing the rights of our population. Common freedoms that we have today, that we don't usually stop to think about, will be gone if our country decides to rid itself of the 2nd amendment. Without weapons, against an armed opponent, we are but mere slaves.
People say there is power in words. This is true. The only problem is; there is more power in a single bullet.
Anyone can be silenced at any time by any authority, with a simple gunshot wound to the head. They wouldn't even have to work hard to hide it, just create a more sensationalist story to hide prying eyes from what they are trying to accomplish.
I wish to live a life free of oppression, and thus, I will fight if anyone threatens to take my freedoms away.
~Kacey, sixteen years of age, self-educated.
Due to the Supreme Court cases Palko v. CT and McCulloch v. Maryland, the SCOTUS does find many policies limiting gun proliferation as Constitutional. Since the 2nd Amendment isn't a fundamental right "implicit to a concept of ordered liberty" (Scalia would disagree, but his opinion on this isn't grounded in court precednet), it is generally not considered a fundamental right by most justices. Therefore, when a government has a "legitimate state interest" in limiting this right, so long as the policy is properly tailored to the problem, the court does find it Constitutional. We can limit firearm proliferation properly even with the 2nd Amendment. Plus, the 2nd Amendment allowed for the invention of the National Guard and state defense forces due to the militia clause. That's protecting the public in and of itself.
A gun ban now would only make the problem worse. There are millions and millions of guns in the US, and nobody would ever confiscate every last one. Plus, remember that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Criminals don't care about gun laws. If every civilian was unarmed and one criminal had one gun, imagine how many people would die in a shooting? Believe it or not, the second amendment is the only thing deterring many more mass shootings. Cops take entire minutes to respond, but a trained civilian with a gun can stop a murderer before he takes a single victim.
The 2nd Amendment, as well as, the Bill of Rights are words on paper. They did not give anyone any 'rights' that they did not already have. However, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and Bill of Rights was to record and insure against abuse by the 'central authority' established by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution; it was a block put into place by those who were opposed to ratification previously. They were called the Anti-Federalists and they argued that there was too much given to Congress.
An Individual Human Being has the right to defend themselves from harm, as well as others. Owning a weapon, be it a firearm, knife, bow, etc., is part of being prepared to do this.
The public is what exactly? The word 'public' is simply a name given to a large amount of Individual Human Beings, many of which have the ability to defend themselves from harm; and can defend others as well, who may not be limited in ability.
There are parasitic people in this world; some are obvious about it when they murder or commit some other evil act and are caught, others are more subtle and it can be hard to tell that they intend harm. But they are less inclined towards acting out their crimes on an armed populace then, those who are helpless in protecting themselves.
Therefore, the 2nd Amendment must remain in order for the 'public' to be protected.
Safety in our society has nothing to do with taking away guns. Gun ownership is no more dangerous to the public than anything else in our society. 5 airplanes where high jacked and used as weapons of mass destruction in 2001. The high jackers had box cutters!! More recently people where killed using pressure cookers. More people are killed every year in automobile accidents, cancer caused by smoking and liver disease caused by alcoholism, separately that by firearms. Should we more strongly restrict these dangers to the public as well? The bottom line is this, legally owning and carrying a firearm gives you the ability to protect yourself and your family against harm. If you are willing to give up the right to protect yourself and family you will give up anything. It is a questions of dependence or independence.
As a brit, it's difficult for me to see this one from your perspective. I've never understood why guns would need to be legal in any reasonable society, so I don't feel that they should be legal at all (except for the police and the army.) In my opinion, the second amendment is like the Bible: it's so bloody old it doesn't really make sense anymore. At the time when it was written, protecting one's own ground with a gun was a necessity in order to assure survival. But nowadays, the gun laws are just insane. America's gun-crime rate is through the roof, but still the vast majority of Americans would sooner give up their d**k than their gun. Either way, I feel like the second amendment should just be abolished and gun laws should be modeled on those of the rest of the first world.
As ive seen guns and saftey dont match. Yes, people want to have guns but people also want to feel safe too. Even though there are restrictions on guns the U.S is one of the highest countries in murders. Think, if no one had a gun we wouldn't have people getting shot and killed.