Amazon.com Widgets

Should citizens have the same weapons as the military?

  • Of course.

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the peoples protection from the government. How can the people defend themselves if the government roles up with automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and flash bangs? Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go to my local gun shop and pick up an M4 Sherman tank, but I do believe we should have the same weapons as the military, so we can defend ourselves when the time arrives.

  • 1776

    Give me liberty or give me death. It is my Constitutional right to bear arms against a tyrannical government and if anyone infringes those rights...well come to my house and I will show you what happens. If I don't have these rights that welcomes the government to come into my house. It is unconstitutional to think otherwise!

  • In an ever changing in world we have the right not to be out gunned by government.

    When the military and police can own weapons that the civilian population cannot there will be tyranny, and more corruption. Government needs to be kept in place by the people as the constitution is written. It makes it hard for government to become tyrannical as it has been going down that road for quite a while now.

  • Not ALL weapons

    First of all, I am a 2nd amendment advocate, but allowing the average joe to buy nuclear missiles is absurd, and would place many people in danger. Small arms such as assault rifles and machine guns are reasonable because they deliver a level of force designed for defensive encounters, but nuclear weapons don't serve any role in YOUR defense of your life and liberties. I firmly believe that people should have access to the most effective weaponry available to defend themselves when the government fails to protect them. However, some weapons are not designed for civilian use, such as ICBM's or tanks. Lawless countries like Yemen and Afghanistan have a populace armed to the teeth. In fact, their populace is the dominant military power in those countries. Subsequently, the government can't enforce laws, and is unable maintain justice. Our government officials represent the PEOPLE, and as long as they represent us, they will never turn against us.

    The current 2nd amendment debate in the US is whether or not the PEOPLE should have access to small arms such as assault rifles. I think that they absolutely should, because they offer a level of force which is fitting for civilian use.

  • Yes, but good luck with that.

    Any one, or any gang(military/police) with bigger sticks than you wants to keep it that way. We definitely should have equal arms however, they will never allow us to have access to the secret high-tech weaponry that "doesn't exist". The government has been creating false pretexts (mass shootings/"terrorism") to lock us down as well as conditioning the masses to worship authority. Unless civilians have access to nukes, they are in CONTROL. Unless civilians have energy weapons, they are in CONTROL. Unless civillains have starships, weather control, and the same bio-warfare weapons, they are in CONTROL. As long as compulsory education exists, they are in CONTROL. As long as there is an authority of any kind, including religions, we will always have the smaller stick. Don't you know Earth is literally the farm and the
    hu-man is literally the farm animal?

  • Wether it has spoeting usr ir not is arbitrary.

    A lot of politicians and people in the anti gun community you'll often here them make the excuse that a specific "style" of firearm has no "sporting purpose". The thing is that the second amendment was not added to the Bill of RIGHTS, for "sporting use", it was added so that the playing field between the government and the people would be equalized. So therefore i strongly believe that us as U.S. citizens should have acess to military grade firearms just as easily as the federal, or even state governments can.

  • Wether it has spoeting usr ir not is arbitrary.

    A lot of politicians and people in the anti gun community you'll often here them make the excuse that a specific "style" of firearm has no "sporting purpose". The thing is that the second amendment was not added to the Bill of RIGHTS, for "sporting use", it was added so that the playing field between the government and the people would be equalized. So therefore i strongly believe that us as U.S. citizens should have acess to military grade firearms just as easily as the federal, or even state governments can.

  • The Tree of Liberty

    As Thomas Jefferson once stated, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." While this has often been misconstrued, the premise remains clear: that "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" for the simple reason that the 2nd Amendment is designed for the protection of the citizenry against those that would rule them without representing their interests, just as our current government does, even now. They tax and they outright rob our children of their future through massive debt and outrageous spending. Regardless of the political ideologies that one belongs to, it is unconstitutional and in fact criminal to believe that the common man (a phrase that is often misleading, as all men are common, no matter what they might try to make you believe) should not be given the same ability to both defend himself and to act against tyrannical despots in the name of liberty and justice for all in this great nation of ours, a nation which, if something is not soon changed, will cease to be great.

  • Trust Individual not Governments

    Citizens should be allowed access to ALL forms of weaponry that a government uses, for the very fact that a government is no more trustworthy than an individual. The government is just as likely to use the weapons on its populace as an individual on his neighbors. People are inherently good and most people with guns don't just go around shooting people on a whim. Governments, however, often enter into wars on little more than a whim and the destruction they can cause is catastrophic.

  • Yes.

    Yes, I think civilians should be suitably armed. The Framers of the Constitution included the second amendment so the people could defend themselves, from their own government if need be. If they had not included that, how long do you think the country as it was intended to be would have lasted? Someone placed in a position of power would inevitably get greedy and attempt to take more than the constitution had intended to go to the government. The second amendment is a safeguard to the possibility, however slim or outrageous, of a government takeover of the country. I think that yes, for the most part, civilians should have access to many of the same weapons as military personnel.

    Posted by: cg42
  • Not ALL weapons

    First of all, I am a 2nd amendment advocate, but allowing the average joe to buy nuclear missiles is absurd, and would place many people in danger. Small arms such as assault rifles and machine guns are reasonable because they deliver a level of force designed for defensive encounters, but nuclear weapons don't serve any role in YOUR defense of your life and liberties. I firmly believe that people should have access to the most effective weaponry available to defend themselves when the government fails to protect them. However, some weapons are not designed for civilian use, such as ICBM's or tanks. Lawless countries like Yemen and Afghanistan have a populace armed to the teeth. In fact, their populace is the dominant military power in those countries. Subsequently, the government can't enforce laws, and is unable maintain justice. Our government officials represent the PEOPLE, and as long as they represent us, they will never turn against us.

    The current 2nd amendment debate in the US is whether or not the PEOPLE should have access to small arms such as assault rifles. I think that they absolutely should, because they offer a level of force which is fitting for civilian use.

  • They Do Not

    Former Justice John Paul Stevens, JD, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. V. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."Michael Waldman, JD, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed. In addition, guns are rarely used in self defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior.

  • They Do Not Need The Same Weapons

    People do not need to have access to the same weapons that the military had. It would be very unsafe in our communities of this happened. There is some really serious weaponry in the military. I would feel unsafe if people had some of those weapons in my area and community.


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