Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed?
YES YES YES.
I strongly agree with this. My sister got killed because of guns. If there was a better way to control guns, my sister would be here. I would be back to normal. Thanks to guns, my role model is now gone. The government needs to do something better about these objects that are only used for killing.
Posted by: AnonymousConstitution was meant to be changed and was, many times
The Constitution was flawed. It used to legalize slavery and count women and black people lower than white men. We all agree that is wrong, and it was fixed. The second amendment is no different. It was included as a military strategy so that militias (regular people self organizing into local armies) could form when needed. That need is gone as we have a professional military that we fund massively. Secondly, the second amendment is too general. It can remain but be modified to exclude guns altogether. The US can then become safer. Plenty of countries lack a second amendment and are safer than the US. UK cops usually don't carry guns, they don't need them! I don't want civilians with guns of any kind. The US gun culture is outdated and extremely dangerous. Historical analysis in the far future will make our current culture seem barbaric.
Posted by: rickyjamesKids, death, tragedy.
Two words: Sandy Hook. They unleashed a freaking mad man with a death machine (otherwise known as guns). Our founding father always thought of handguns not assault rifles, things like that. These death machines should be used by the military, the army, the Navy SEALs. But not our everyday Americans!
Posted by: AnonymousYes.
Given the obscene amount of trouble it has given us, as well as the fact that other countries get by find without it, I certainly would support repealing the Second Amendment and replacing it with something more grounded in the common good.
Posted by: CitrakayahRisk vs Reward
There is no question that guns are a tool integral to many rewarding activities like hunting, competition shooting, & historical reenactments.
Unfortunately, the economic, emotional, and societal costs of making this type of tool available are far too high.
Throughout history, dozens of family traditions have been legislated out of existence. Sometimes, we have to adjust our lives to promote what we really want. If safe kids aren't reason enough, I don't know what is.
PS Maybe some guns can remain legal, but only those that are 4 ft long, weigh 25+ lbs, and a muzzle-loaded. Guns like this cannot kill dozens of people quickly.Posted by: AnonymousGuns are for killing not for keeping
The resent massacres like the Tucson shooting or The murder of 20 young children, gun laws are still not strong enough for these kind of events to be prevented. The second amendment states that people have the right to bear arms, when really they have something in their hands that can take the lives of others. Many inexperienced people that bear arms don't know how to use them and they might kill someone by accident, in this case only the militia should have the right to arms since they are trained to use them. But not only adults bear arms, many programs that teach gun control, for example Eddie Eagle Gun Safe Program teaches kids to not touch weapons, but they are going out there and doing it anyway. In conclusion the Second Amendment should be repealed due to the killings of many people and weak gun laws will only bring more gun violence or more gun fights to our community, so for the safety of our citizens, there shouldn't be amendments that allow people to bear guns.
Posted by: AnonymousDoesn't really matter anyway
Rights don't come from a piece of paper. They are inherent and inalienable. All humans living are born with them.
Who cares what is written on a piece of paper by a bunch of dead men? You are not a party to that contract nor did you sign it.
If you value your life, liberty and property you would be foolish not to own and know how to use a gun.
There are bad people in this world who will hurt you and steal your stuff.
Fact: a gun is the best tool on the face of the planet a person can have and use for self-defense. That is why the cops have them.
The cops fight the same bad guys ordinary people fight and they choose guns as the tool to do it with. Why wouldn't ordinary people then use the same tool.Posted by: stockonederStop using outdated arguments.
How often do people who have guns to "protect themselves" from danger actually use them? Don't say it'll make us worse off without looking around the world at countries with stricter gun control or even bans. They are safer and have less deaths attributed to handgun violence. Lunatics (most of whom have no previous criminal history) should not be able to purchase a gun in America. A simple background check for criminal history is pretty easy to pass for most people. There are literally no good reasons to have a gun (especially assault weapons, why the hell are those not banned?) with you in this day and age.
Posted by: AnonymousIt certainly should.
On December 15 1791 the right to bear arms was adopted in the United States Constitution. When the founding fathers were sitting around the table discussing the options for gun laws they were surrounded by a society that required guns to be the right of everyone. England and the separatist Americans were in a violent conflict that resulted in many civilian casualties. Cities were always under threat from aboriginal raids. The continental army was new and untrained. The people could hardly feel safe under their protection. Another thing to remember was slavery still dominated the cultures of many colonies. In the south, slaves often outnumbered the American citizens. What was to stop the slaves from rebelling and killing their cruel owners? Guns were a necessity for Americans to survive during this time period. It is safe to say that American society has changes since then. You can live today without the realistic fear that you are in danger and need a gun to protect you. The United States has the strongest and most technologically advanced army in the world. They will certainly be able to protect their citizens from any other threatening nations. Slavery was repealed a long time ago. There is no one that you need to control or intimidate with a weapon. Hopefully America will not have to go to war over the gun control debate. Supporters of the second amendment and its traditions continue to say it is necessary because we need to defend ourselves from the government. If the government becomes tyrannical it is the people’s duty to take it back. This was a very relevant cause when America was trying to run from King George’s overpowering governance. The founding fathers wanted to ensure their government does not take the form of the one they just escaped from. Today Americans do not need to fear the tyrannical rule of kings. In fact America has a government on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum. Besides even if you were to attempt to take back the government you would have no success. Your Smithson Weston does not exactly help you when fighting drones. The founding fathers certainly did not anticipate the types of weaponry accessible today. American society has evolved since the eighteenth century and it is time their gun laws reflected it.
Posted by: AnonymousCourt has misinterpreted the Amendment
The judicial system, including the Supreme Court, has misinterpreted the Second Amendment statement that "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." The only recourse now is to repeal the amendment.
Posted by: AnonymousIf you trust the police and home security, it won't be needed.
If you actually NEED security, we have police and home security. If we do not take a look at the Second Amendment and make some changes to it, or repeal it, then nothing is ever going to change. We will keep having random shootings in campuses, malls, schools, and streets. Doesn't this worry you? It worries me.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, let common sense win.
It's from an out-dated context that is no longer relevant to a world that has moved on and progressed! To stop Tyranny? Come off it! They would be as effective as a pea shooter against the force of the military. Americans are being sold a warped sense of "fear-dom" dressed up as "freedom" for the capital gain of gun manufacturers and the NRA!
Posted by: AnonymousThe arguments against are ridiculous
If you need guns to protect you from a)your government, b)criminals, or c)being invaded by the English, then: a) there's something seriously wrong with your government and other changes are needed, or b) there's something seriously wrong with your judicial system in that you don't believe the state can provided justice for you, not to mention c) the USA spends more money on defense then the next 20 odd nations or 40% of the worlds military spending is spent by the USA, besides you people are crazy, Britain doesn't want you back.
Posted by: AnonymousGun deaths at all time high in America
America leads the world in gun deaths. Arguments about hunting and protection are archaic and stupid. It's amazing in this day and age people can't see the bigger harm that this amendment and the corruption of its use has on the United States. Why can't people just see the bigger good that could be gained?
Posted by: AnonymousTwenty dead six-year-olds. How many more need to die?
What really got to me about the Sandy Hook atrocity was the coroner's statement that he could only show pictures of the dead children's faces to the grieving parents for identification because the injuries were so horrific.
As a nation we cower before the gun lobby and the many adamant gun nuts who have large private arsenals. Tragedy after tragedy occurs and nothing gets done because it is so hard to have a meaningful, sensible gun safety public policy that can survive a legal challenge under the 2nd Amendment, even though we've long since abandoned the concept of a "well regulated militia" of citizens which was the whole reason for the amendment in the first place. It is time for a change.Posted by: PmshawjrStop the NRA exploiting the issue.
This will at least stop the NRA from exploiting the issue purely for the profit of gun makers.
Clearly the FFs had no idea that guns would be as deadly as they are now. The Constitution is not a dead book. It has to change with the times. We need to learn from the rest of the world.Posted by: AnonymousWho are you going kill?
Why do you think anyone needs a gun? Are you going to go up against the US Military? Do you honestly think that you are going to shoot a burglar or stop some crime like in the movies? I don't think so. If you want to go shoot animals and eat their dead meat, that's your perversion, but I don't think you need an AK-47 to do that.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Criminal Insane
Think of Sandy Hook Elementary. Think of the Boston Marathon Bombing. The explosion of the Twin Towers? People who stand FOR this amendment... Are you saying these don't matter? Because of this amendment, people are killed every day of the week! My opinion is that any rank above a state cop is allowed to bear weapons such as guns. Local police should have their regular bats and tasers. Any citizen of the U.S. Who has a weapon by ANY reason should immediately be subject to deportation!
Posted by: AnonymousParanoia is the threat, not the government.
Paranoia is the greatest enemy in America right now. You have mothers and fathers who want to go to church, Walmart, birthdays, and the bathroom with a fully loaded arsenal. What is being created is jumpy individuals ready to shoot the first shadow that moves. Guns are never going to solve this problem in the USA. We need to learn to trust our neighbors and ourselves. We need to learn independent thought instead of jumping up to support every conspiracy theory. If every conspiracy being presented today was true then the need for more guns might have merit. But we all know that these conspiracies are just that, and they are hyping up the USA citizens and making this country a very bad place for guns.
Posted by: silvernecchoThis is an archaic amendment, much like prohibition, and owning slaves.
I look to our closest allies for the right way to do it. Look at England and Australia. Both countries have banned guns, and the amount of gun violence and suicides from guns have gone down. Look at Israel, where they have strict gun laws. The Israeli soldiers are not allowed to take their arms home and the amount of military suicides from guns has gone down. We should make gun laws stricter. Any criminals using guns get the max. A law like this would take care of the "only criminals will have guns" argument. Make guns highly illegal with severe punishments. This country, much like countries in the Middle East, is too in love with guns. They are not a toy. They are really not even a tool. They are a killing device.
Posted by: scoxocsYes because not all the amendments have survived or should; society changes and so should the laws that are outdated.
I continue to think we are over empowering the second amendment and always have. Even the founders considered some limitations and controls on this right. They would never allow private ownership of a ship of war (they were outlaws, or pirates). As time progressed, we did not allow private ownership of weapons of war that were clearly meant to kill many at a time (gattlin' guns, cannon, armed aircraft or autos or tanks). The right was never absolute and non-restrictable, and perhaps now it is just not a necessary guarantee? Do you really think having even fully automatic assault rifles give you a chance against the current military/government that all these fear-mongering radicals preach to be afraid of—not a chance!
And finally, why do we always forget the part of the amendment that says "as part of a well organized militia"? Nothing about unlimited access to guns, or any access to guns for that matter, a "right" without the second have of the amendment being considered?Posted by: AnonymousStop using outdated arguments.
How often do people who have guns to "protect themselves" from danger actually use them? Don't say it'll make us worse off without looking around the world at countries with stricter gun control or even bans. They are safer and have less deaths attributed to handgun violence. Lunatics (most of whom have no previous criminal history) should not be able to purchase a gun in America. A simple background check for criminal history is pretty easy to pass for most people. There are literally no good reasons to have a gun (especially assault weapons, why the hell are those not banned?) with you in this day and age.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns lead to more trouble for people.
According to the article “Repeal the Second Amendment”, “As for the notion that guns are necessary in order to defend oneself from an intruder with a gun: One study of three U.S. cities revealed that injuries involving guns kept at home almost always resulted from accidental firings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicides by the residents, not self-defense scenarios.”
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are created to kill people
Guns don't have any useful purpose in modern society. People die because of the guns violence, and guns don't prevent crimes as some like to proclaim. If second amendment was justifiable after the Independence War, founding fathers could not predict technical advancement in gun's technology that allow gun's to slaughter, but could do nothing to prevent imaginary oppressive drone armed government from takeover. The real safeguard of our freedoms is the First amendment.
Posted by: AnonymousShould be replaced.
In the US you only have the ability to own a weapon. What the hell? Let's use comparative politics to see how effective this is: in Canada you have the right to property (which also includes the right to arms) Thus actually EXPANDING civil liberties. Finally, to those who say 'it protects us against government' .. yeah okay. Let's see what your pea-shooter does to an F-16 jet! Also .. pretty sure the founding fathers didn't have an ak-47 in mind when they made that law.
Posted by: TheHitchslapGuns are for killing
The founding fathers thought we needed guns for a well regulated militia, not for your own personal arsenal. They also thought you could own other human beings. More guns means more shooting. The crime rate keeps going up and up and up. If the idea that more guns meant less crime, wouldn't see some serious results by now?
In the days of the founding father guns were a necessity, you needed them to get through the week, you didn't need them as a security blanket.Posted by: AnonymousIt may stop more carnages
It needs to be repealed. In Australia where I live we don't have the 2nd Amendment but at one time we had very liberal gun laws until however, the massacre in Port Arthur by a deranged young man.
Now we are very strict laws for the ownership of guns...
But that has not stopped people with legitimate reasons for needing a gun from being able to get one.
I know police officers who said that owning a gun did not necessarily mean it would protect you when faced with a serious assailant. Most of the time the assailants have taken the guns from people and used it to kill them.
My heart goes out to the innocent victims all over the world who have been gunned down because they are allowed "to bare arms"... When will it stop?Posted by: AnonymousCriminals and unstable people should not have access to guns.
We cannot agree to seriously check criminal or mental health background before allowing someone to buy a weapon. 5 minute wait and a phone call is not a sufficient background investigation. We also cannot agree to have measures to secure legally obtained weapons. For example: son getting his mother's legally obtained guns and using them to shoot kids in a school, why weren't those weapons secured? The only way to secure weapons from falling into the wrong hands is to not allow those that cannot provide sufficient security to have those weapons in the first place. That includes most of the population, not counting military and law enforcement. Things would be much simpler for law enforcement. They would check: Do you have a weapon? If yes, are you law enforcement or military? If the answer to 2nd question is no, go to jail. No need for further investigation, no messy trials, no legal loopholes. Very simple way to identify criminals. Have gun = criminal. This would eliminate great deal of suicides, homicides, and massacres. Proven to work in most civilized nations in the world. Will criminals still occasionally have guns? Sure, they will steal them on very very rare occasions. Criminals don't follow laws regarding theft, yet theft is still ILLEGAL. Same as guns should be = ILLEGAL. I personally would feel much safer if 99.99% criminals tried to rob me with a knife, a club, or brass knuckles, than with a firearm. I would be much more likely to resist successfully, which would increase the rate of those who attempt to commit a crime getting caught.
Posted by: Anonymousyou don't have any right to defend yourself so why do you need a gun?
That is why we have 911 and police. They will protect you. All you have to do is call and they will come and instantly stop any imminent harm. And guns are so unsafe. They can fire all by themselves and usually kill children. If guns were banned then criminals would not be able to use guns.
Posted by: AnonymousA well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state thus the right to own guns is now INVALID.
The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" IF it is necessary for the people to maintain a well regulated militia. The people back when the constitution was drafted were widely dispersed and the militia to protect their state unregulated. However, today WE HAVE A REGULATED MILITIA established NOT BY THE PEOPLE but BY THE STATE therefore the right to own guns by the people or an individual is now INVALID because that right was directly CONTINGENT to the first clause of the 2nd Amendment which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" which is no longer true which in turn OVERRIDES the right for the people to bear arms. Funny that gun owners in America are breaking the very constitution that they so adamantly espouse. If you own a gun you may be doing it legally but you are doing it unconstitutionally!
Posted by: Deb_ate_organicRepeal the part of the second amendment that includes the "right to bear arms" language
I believe the United States is the only country that has this type of language it its constitution. If this language is removed, it won't explicitly prevent people from owning guns.
But having it in the constitution provides cover for people and organizations to refer back to the constitution, and feel it immunizes them from gun restrictions. They conflate things like "liberty" and "freedom" with gun ownership, because it is in the constitution.
In short, we don't need the second amendment for people to own guns.
The argument for the second amendment somehow includes the idea of some kind of government event that people will have to defend themselves from. Really, are there black helicopters ready to somehow take over? When the amendment was written there was a possible concern about how the experiment would play out. But now, only the conspiracy theorists are that paranoid. Besides, I am trying to envision how that might play out. So who is going to come and get you? Why are they coming to get you?
A repeal or removal of the right to bear arms language would allow a more reasonable legislative and judicial process to determine how guns should be regulated.Posted by: AnonymousCall for a Constitutional Convention.
There comes a time in a democratic society when in becomes necessary to consider whether the constitution by which the country is governed has become dated and out of step. As the society and technologies change, so must the rules of governing. There would be no way for our founding fathers to have envisioned the world of today. I believe that it is time to consider a call for a Constitutional Convention to "clean up" and clarify our governing policies. A new constitution will clarify what the "right to bear arms" really means. It will remove the remaining scars in the constitution not removed by the 13th amendment where a black man is still valued as 3/5 of a white man. It will clarify citizenship laws. It will clarify separation of church and state. It will finally include "All of the People" by the inclusion of the spirit of the Equal Rights Amendment that still remains in limbo. This would make a very exciting as well as emotional time for America, but we would be an even stronger country in the end.
Posted by: AnonymousIf it is the will of the people
I'm not saying this is currently true, but if it is the will of the majority of Americans to repeal the 2nd amendment, then it should be done. Laws and amendments are created, in the end, by the majority vote whether they be fair to everyone or not. To those gun owners who rant about a tyrannical government, and threaten with force if the 2nd amendment gets repealed by the will of the majority of Americans. Is that not tyrannical? Is that not treason? It wouldn't be patriotic if it went against the will of the majority.
Posted by: AnonymousStill a right?
I think the debate revolves largely around whether or not we have a "right to bear arms." However, even if we do, removing it from the constitution does not mean that we cannot recognize it as such--it just means that it won't be viewed as this universal right, which it certainly is not.
Posted by: AnonymousThe only way to really save lives is bring the 2nd Amendment into the 21st century.
The 2nd amendment was written in the mid 1700's. The word "arms" as written referred to muskets and pistols not today's arsenal of highly developed weapons. The 2nd Amendment, as written, is being misrepresented by the NRA's pimp, the gun industry, and irrational extremists bent on causing the destruction of our democratically elected government. Truthfully,the NRA no longer represents our countries "hunters" but by careful stragetical marketing has succeeded in making many believe that they do. A 2nd Amended brought into the 21st century would protect the hunter's rights but also protect the rights of all future innocent victims and their families of unnecessary deaths by gun violence.
Posted by: Anonymous
The constitution should be left to speak for itself.
The constitution clearly states that it is an American right to bear arms. Is it honestly suggested that we believe some of the most brilliant minds that ever lived didn't have the foresight to imagine an increase in the power and sophistication of weaponry? No, but it was seen as a valid risk.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need it for self-protection.
We need the Second Amendment to protect ourselves from criminals as well as from the government. Police are a joke. All they are, are the people who show up and clean up the mess and write a report after the crime is already committed. When was the last time you heard a report saying assault avoided or rape avoided because someone called 911? It doesn't happen. Flavor Flav said at best 911 is a joke. I will call 911 only to come remove the intruder's body.
Posted by: AnonymousThe military, police and criminals should not be the only ones with with guns.
The military, police and criminals should not be the only ones with with guns. In an ideal situation we would live in a land of peace and prosperity. We don't and the in a world police, military and criminals commit heinous crimes every day I think having protection is our right.
Posted by: bdunham2369My outdated opinion
Folks are saying that owning a gun is an outdated opinion because 'how many people that own guns have had to use them to defend themselves?' Maybe we should ask that very same question, if we could, to the 12,000,000 killed by the Hitler regime (not including soldiers killed because of the war). Or maybe the 6,000,000 killed by the Stalin regime. Or how about the 78,000,000 killed by the Mao regime. Not enough yet? Okay, Kim Il Sung has purged over 1,600,000 North Koreans or Pol Pot in Cambodia with 1,700,000. Maybe if these people had been armed their governments wouldn't have succeeded in the tyranny that did happen. The use of a weapon that "looks" like an AK-47, but is not an 'assault' weapon, is to keep any government from overtaking the citizenry. BTW, an 'assault' weapon is any weapon capable of firing on full automatic and does not include anything that has been altered to do the same. A fully automatic switch position on an AK-47 makes it an assault weapon. An AK-47 look-a-like that fires one round per trigger pull is not an assault weapon. At least get your facts straight during your arguments. And why does the US spend so much on the military? Because some dimwit somewhere in our history decided we'd be the ones to help every other country defend itself. You can't do that if you don't have a strong, global military. Britain used to, but gave it to the US to take over the job. That, or it got its backside kicked once too often and lost most of its territories.
Posted by: AnonymousIt shall not be infringed.
The Constitution is the law of the land, and we have the God-given right to be able to defend ourselves with whatever means necessary from any threat that may come against us. Crime has steadily decreased over the past 20 years as gun ownership has increased. Criminals do not want to face armed citizens. Disarming law-abiding citizens will only leave the criminals with firearms.
Posted by: AnonymousDangerous governments are still here.
Throughout history governments have proved time and again that they view themselves as elite and the citizenry as subjects to be controlled. Our founding fathers realized this and drafted the Second Amendment to protect the power of the people from tyrannical governments.
Not only should the Second Amendment stand, it should be enforced.The Federal or state government does not have the power to restrict gun ownership or to restrict the kinds of arms people can own. The government needs to start serving the populace and following the constitution. People's rights are being infringed daily.
I for one trust myself over the government in maters of my personal rights and do not wish to hand the government any more of my rights. I do not want to hunt or recreate. I want to use guns designed to kill people, to kill people. I want my right to defend myself and my property from those who would threaten them. Maybe I am out of touch with the times. But the government will take all you give them and don't give it back easily. So if you want to trust people who can't even balance a checkbook, will refuse to allow a taxed district representation, and ignores laws states pass and foist their beliefs on them through federal agency enforcement, then fine enjoy your police state. I'll just expatriate to France.Posted by: ftw2177My Constitutional rights.
We have rights that are God-given and those that were man-made. But either way, they are OUR RIGHTS and should never be changed. So many of our rights have been stomped on and removed through the years. That is what's wrong with our country now. We removed God from school and all public places. We're not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance in a lot of places and events. Children now do not know the importance of God and country. Never should our ability to protect ourselves from criminals and gangbangers (those children) be taken away from us.
Posted by: AnonymousThere is nothing more basic to freedom and liberty than arms.
The right to arms is as basic to the ideas of freedom and liberty as air is to maintaining life. Free men have arms, slaves and wards of the state do not. Our framers did not include that amendment by accident or without thought. To give up that right will mark our transition from a form of government where the power is inherent in the people, to a government that controls us.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely not!
The purpose of the second amendment, like the other nine amendments of the bill of rights, was to protect people from the government. The nature of the second amendment being to protect freedom, the right to bear arms is absolute. With the growing police state it is necessary that the right to bear arms is not only left in tact but also expanded.
Posted by: mike.fYou can repeal the 2nd Amendment if you like.
That would only delete the legality under law. The right to self-defense is God-given and inalienable. The Constitution does not give us rights, it is designed to protect those rights against a tyrannical government. Given the state of lawlessness perpetrated by government today, it will now be up to the individual to protect themselves and their Rights.
Posted by: AnonymousRight as Americans
You people think that if its illegal to own a fire arm that everything will be amazing! Well last time I checked criminals do not follow laws! And criminals will find many more ways to kill people besides just guns. The boston bombing happened without the use of guns, they used BOMBS! And they will continue to do so if you take away guns!
Posted by: AnonymousThe second amendment is an insurance the govt. won't ruin our rights
Without the second amendment, the innocent would be disarmed leaving the criminals with guns. Criminals never have, and never will follow rules like that. The government can have an easier ability to take our rights. In the past, other countries have showed that. We can't let the government have the bigger guns. It is proven in Chicago that the thugs and criminals there are more powerful they would be in most places. Chicago had some of the biggest gun control laws and that is what gave the criminals power. If the innocent have guns, that gives more power to the innocent. That is also how a government and people work. The man with the gun is going to win. It's sickens me to see people giving up their rights for a false sense of security. It is a proven fact that the government will have more power over the people. Democides, the amount of people that are killed by the government has taken the most lives then any other thing that can kill someone.
Posted by: Anonymousnoi
No because we should be able to hunt and protect orselves from harm and some people use guns to hunt for there food if they get there guns taken away they wont be able to get there food so they wont be able to eat. I think we should have chickens in are back yard.
Posted by: AnonymousThere's a reason that it is the 2nd amendment
The second amendment is the reason why we are still a nation and why dictatorship hasn't taken over, you repeal the second amendment, you repeal our freedom to be an American, the right to defend yourself when you need it the most and when the police aren't there to protect you, the 2nd amendment isn't there to kill innocent people
Posted by: msaka33Freedom, liberty, deterrent!
The Second Amendment is part of The Bill of Rights! Without this all the rest will soon be weakened or repealed, just the same as the Second! Read the Constitution. The American Government is FOR the people! By the people! And OF the people! Governments DO NOT want the people to control them! And this is the reason why the progressives (liberals), etc. want to do away with the Second and eventually the rest! Please people read your history! Study the real reasons why the Constitution was written!
Posted by: AnonymousNo structure exists that can possibly do this.
The consequences of any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be more destructive than continuing on with the Amendment intact.
Posted by: EricPriceThe Government Should take no Place in People's Personal Rights, Especially Constitutional!
Why would anyone be so arrogant as to want to ban guns from the United States of America? They are our ultimate piece of personal protection. It is ridiculous to think that it will cut down on crime because guess what? Chicago, (by the way that is where our President is from) has the highest crime rate of any city in the United States and guns are totally banned there! If people want to kill somebody, they will find away around the law and make sure they get their weapon of choice. How about the government quits trying to dictate our lives and we get our freedoms back.
Posted by: AnonymousAh, hell no.
The second amendment is the codification of a basic human right, the right to defend oneself, one's family, one's community and nation. The Constitution's and the Bill of Rights' purpose is to recognize and codify and protect HUMAN rights that existed before the US was created, and to place LIMITS on government power.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't repeal the Second Amendment
I live in a country which has very strict limits on gun possession; we can't defend ourselves and if we do, we are punished by the law. Every day we hear about violations and rapes and we can do nothing about. We can't stand this situation anymore! Take care of your Amendment.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople kill People
Taking away our guns won't stop violence. It will only stop people from being able to defend themselves. Someone with intent to kill won't stop just because guns are illegal, obviously. Therefore, making guns illegal wouldn't affect them. It would only leave us defenseless as vulnerable targets.
That is all.Posted by: AnonymousWhat the constitution says
We should not because it's the person who pulled the trigger that hurts people - its not the guns fault. Plus government can't take the guns away because the constitution says "shall not be infringed" so it's not possible. It's just the people we need to worry about so don't blame guns.
Posted by: AnonymousNO!!!!
Of course not. How would we protect ourselves from criminals and government?
Posted by: BilldekelNo
First you repeal the 2nd amendment, then you ban weapons, then you have a monopoly on force.
Posted by: AlwaysMoreThanYouWhy not repeal all your constitutional rights?
You really should read the Constitution. It is difficult to believe that there are people out there who advocate changing the constitution for the purpose of taking away some of your personal freedoms and rights.
I own firearms in accordance with my constitutional rights and have used a firearm for personal protection of my home, life and property. Without the firearm, I would have undoubtedly been severely injured or possibly dead.Posted by: AnonymousOur rights are being taken away one by one -- Are we headed towards Communism?
As the years have gone by the people of the United States allow their fears fed by media, mentally ill, and terrorists to claim their rights of freedom and liberty. Our rights to parent our own children have slowly diminished and are being dictated by government laws now our guns are being taken from us. What will be next people? What fear will you fall into next to allow your rights and freedom to be taken from you making our founding fathers battles and triumphs seem waste of time and worthless. Many lives lost for our freedom will become meaningless because we have allowed all they fought for go to the way side due to releasing our rights back to a communist or socialist government who will come to dictate your path in life. It is up to you as an individual to choose to live in your fears or climb out of them and fight for your right to be free to choose your own path not those given to you based on fear and chaos. Instead fight for the better laws and penalties for those who take a life, programs for those who are mentally ill, programs for those who are unemployed and depressed and programs for distressed teens. There is stronger problems facing our culture out there than gun control, fix those problems and it will solve the issues of what is happening to our civilization without taking our freedoms and rights away.
Posted by: NuwishI have the right to protect myself.
I have the right to protect myself and my family. It is a God given right, not a right granted by the government. I have the right to defend myself from those who wish to do harm. A call to 911 is a call for a body bag. Too much can happen in the time it takes for law enforcement to arrive.
Posted by: AnonymousSovereign citizens must restrain government.
The founding fathers recognized the risk of excessive control developing by those in power. Therefore, they sought to ensure that sovereign citizens always would have the ability to defend against overreach of excessive government. The concerns of Jefferson, Adams and Madison have proved valid. Citizens must retain control of the government. The second amendment assures that citizens will have tools for their self defense.
Posted by: AnonymousEssential for Homeland Defense and Domestic Disaster Releif
US Code Title 10 defines the militia as all able bodied men between the age of 18 and 46. The militia has two components. The drilling and non-drilling. Non-drilling militia members are required to arm themselves for defense of the state against foreign and domestic threats as commanded by the governor. The drilling component of the militia is the National Guard. So, if you repeal the 2nd amendment you have to pass another amendment also abolishing the militia. If you abolish the militia you also abolish the National Guard. If you do that then you significantly reduce the ability of a state to respond to natural disaster. And, remember, balance of power is not for the executive branches only. There has to be a balance of power between the federal government and the people. That's why the militia exists.
Posted by: AnonymousOf course not, how can I protect myself?
How can I protect myself in the here and now when the police are 10-15 minutes away? It's idiotic to think that ANYONE else besides me is responsible for my immediate safety. Also, The Second Amendment helps to protect us from tyrannical government. Thirdly, an armed society is a polite society.
Posted by: AnonymousThe 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, should not be repealed. The government doesn't have a compelling interest in restricting gun ownership.
Repealing the 2nd Amendment and making gun ownership illegal wouldn't keep guns from being used in illegal actions. The majority of guns used in violent crimes were illegally purchased or stolen. The real issue is to find a functional, effective means of controlling gun sales. The fact is that it is much more difficult to legally obtain a handgun than it is to get one illegally.
Posted by: G4rwIsdeadWe do not need to go to the extremes, but we should tighten and become stricter on gun laws.
We do not need to go the extremes and ban all guns, but we should tighten and become stricter on gun laws. If we ban all guns, then we will just be taking the right from many good, honest people who use them only for good use like hunting, competitions, recreation or killing livestock. This is because many of the criminals will not have registered their guns, whereas good citizens would have.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Bill of Rights - that is what makes America the country it is.
The Bill of Rights - that is what makes America the country it is - these are basic to all that we hold dear - the thought of repealing any of them would make our founding fathers roll over in their graves. If one of them is repealed - then why not the 1st - 5th - 10th etc.
Posted by: Happyman4Governmental oppression check
The right of each individual citizen to own firearms is an inalienable right! It is not something that man created, it’s a right that every world citizen possesses, whether their individual governments agree or not. Our founders knew what it was like to live under an oppressive tyrannical regime or monarchy as the case was, and have no recourse, no power to change their circumstance. They understood, that their freedom had hinged on the individuals possession of firearms, and their accompanying willingness to fight for their freedom. Our second amendment is nothing more than an acknowledgment that we as individuals have an inalienable right to possess the ability to defend ourselves with the tools necessary to do so. Much is said about the incomparable relationship between muskets and M-16s. They are not comparable, but back in the 17-hundreds, they were the equivalent to what the military and police were armed with. Sadly, today our government has much more capability in regards to arms that its citizens, and to a large extent, it's understandable. I mean, I can’t afford a battleship, or an F/A-18 Super Hornet jet fighter. But, I can own an AR15, and I am willing to fight for my rights, if it ever came to that!
Posted by: AnonymousNo!
Absolutely not. The concealed carry laws made in several states during the 1990s had been incredibly good in ending all crimes. Murder, rape, robbery, etc. have all fallen with these new laws. Any states that are not allowing their citizens to carry guns are doing something against the Constitution.
Posted by: 1HistorygeniusNo
Go through my gun rights debates
Posted by: 16kadamsI think the 2nd Amendment should be revised to reflect changing social norms, but I do not believe that it should be repealed, because citizens need to be able to protect themselves.
While I believe that the right to bear arms should be revised to reflect modern society, I still believe that it is an important right, both for hobbyists, and for personal protection. It is easy to forget that, in some areas of the country, there are still places where "the law" does not consistently reach, and these people still need a way to protect themselves, should the worst happen.
Posted by: ToughEfrain26The 2nd Amendment vouchsafes all other rights.
History has shown that whether by crime, corruption, war or natural disaster, governments and domestic tranquility can fail. Should dark times come to America, it is the People, acting together for their common good, that will preserve order and our natural rights. The 2nd Amendment is the United States' fail-safe, meant to guarantee her citizens not only the right, but the means to defend their life, liberty and security against armed thugs and tyrants. A free people can only give up this right once, and then it is gone forever.
Posted by: AnonymousProtect the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment does not need to be repealed. It is very clear even to a sixth grader it's there so we can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, which is exactly what it's become. It is not the law-abiding citizen that is doing all of these mass shootings, it's the mentally ill.
The government does not want to see the real truth because they know the 2nd Amendment protects the rest. That is what they want, to take all our rights away so they can control our lives. That is exactly what they are heading for because that's exactly what they want. If we lose our 2nd Amendment rights we will certainly lose the rest, so ask yourself a question: why is the government buying billions of rounds of ammo and small tanks for law enforcement and thousands of military style rifles?
The so-called assault weapons they are talking about are not assault rifles which were banned in 1934. They are the full automatic weapons. Ours are not fully automatic, so we can not lose our 2nd Amendment. God forbid the president already wants to use drones on Americans.Posted by: AnonymousAs a father & husband I MUST protect my family from YOU!
James Madison, known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” said “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that “little more can be reasonably aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed.” “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself,” wrote George Washington. “They are the American peoples’ liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it,” advised Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: AnonymousThe second amendment.
As I see on the other side their arguments are, "it's old", "it's outdated", basically what you are saying is that our founding fathers weren't wise enough to foresee what could occur? You question the foundation on which America was built, tyranny is not outdated for the corruption of power knows no time. President Obama has passed several bills that have already given him unprecedented power, and his disciples follow his words closer than the original twelve followed Jesus. All you people do is bring mute our words from your ears, we listen to what you say even is we don't believe the same thing. Everybody will be punished when one person goes on a killing spree, he could have just as easily over powered the teacher and her students with another weapon. Do not allow the government to grow into the size of 1700s England proportions, we created this country on certain foundations to break free from the shackles they held upon us, do not let us be cuffed once more.
-A man who loves his countryPosted by: AnonymousIt is time to stand up and fight.
At this time when our beloved America is going to the dogs in office, it is time to stand up and be willing to fight. I am a 70 year old grandma, but willing to do what I can to save my grandchildren, even though some of them think things are just peachy here in BO's world! Bless their hearts "They know not what they do"!
Posted by: AnonymousCollection issues
How in the world would the government effectively collect the firearms? Would they go inside peoples home and seize them? The problems that would pose would be obvious. Those who resisted and were shot would be labelled as heros. And everyone wants to be a hero. It would embolden more people to do the same.
Posted by: AnonymousNot up to you or the govt. to dictate what I need.
I'm not going to dignify the unitelligent arguements made by these statists who are suffereing from such a gross myopia. First, there is a reason the 2nd. Amend. Is the 2nd, not the 15th. I don't pretend to be so arrogant as to assume what our fathers thought. I know what they wrote down. The Supreme Court has ruled twice in this decade that the 2nd Amend. Guarantees and individual right to bear and conceal arms, as well as allowing for reasonable and intelligent regulation: Heller and Chicago cases. We need to start reading the 2nd. Amendment appropriately. It is divided into two clauses: The prefatory and the operative. The prefatory, which is the subordinate clause (i.E, can't stand alone), reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," doesn't really mean anything unless you as a subordinating conjunction, such as "Because" in front of the clause, elucidates the true meaning. The operative clause is as follows: " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Thus it should be read as follows: [Because] 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. Now, these statists will not be fettered by this argument because they hate the right and think it should be eliminated. I can not argue against it. We just need to make sure that those people never hold the reigns of power.
Posted by: AnonymousThe second amendment should not be repealed.
The Second Amendment isn't just about the right to bear arms as most people think. The Second Amendment protects the rest. The reason behind the Second Amendment and the original intent was to protect our liberty -- for us to be able to protect our lives and our property, but also to protect ourselves from being overrun by our own government. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." When you see the word "infringed," that's the First Amendment being spoken about there. Repealing the rights enumerated in the Constitution will not and, by definition, cannot have the effect of abrogating those rights. They exist naturally and cannot be repealed. We have a natural right to resist tyranny, taking up arms against it if necessary. But that is very different from a supposed right to take up arms in response to any old act of government we happen to disagree with. Take a read at what George Washington said: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." It's obvious President Washington fully understood that distinction.
Posted by: AnonymousProtect ourselves from a tyrannical government.
The 2nd Amendment was put in for a reason. From what I've read in historical documents, it was put in so we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Why do we think our government is so determined to diminish it? If it is repealed, or allowed to fall, then what will protect the remaining Amendments?
Posted by: AnonymousI never thought I'd be speaking out against bans on guns but...
A few reasons why I do not believe the 2nd amendment should be repealed or any ban on guns put into place (except maybe assault rifles/machine guns):
1) It is unenforceable
2) It only harms the law-abiding gun owners (people would simply buy guns illegally)
3) It would just lead to the expansion of illegal/black-market firearm trade.
4) There would be riots (just think of the NRA's famous "from our cold dead hands" phrase)Posted by: junedragonUnconstitutional solutions are not the answer.
The right to bear arms will not deter people from killing other people. This is an act that has taken place throughout the history of man. People need to be held more accountable for their actions and punished by death when violating others right to live. It is an American citizen's right to defend their home and family.
Posted by: AnonymousThe second amendment is the only defense against tyranny.
During the 20th century over 100,000,000 people were exterminated by their governments. These exterminations were in every case preceded by disarming the people. If you think it can never happen here just ask the American Indians. If I need to list examples then the Armenian genocide conducted by the Turks. In Germany Hitler was responsible for the murder of 5 million Germans, Stalin 20 million Soviets, Mao 20 million Chinese, Pol Pot 700,000 Cambodians. I could keep going but the point is made.
Posted by: AnonymousThe right to self-defense is a basic human right.
The Constitution didn't establish the right to self-defense, it simply codified it into American law. Firearms are one tool that can be used in self-defense. Only a fool uses them as a first resort. Your mind is a much more valuable tool. I could go on and on with examples, but it can allow you to avoid dangerous situations in the first place, evade a dangerous person when confronted, even provide arguments to persuade the other to cease and desist.
But if you find yourself in imminent danger of being harmed, a firearm is often the best choice. I personally have never shot anyone, and hope to go to my grave able to still say that. Yet if my choices are the grave or self-defense, I hope the 2nd amendment is still around.Posted by: AnonymousNot in this free country
the second amendment was made to seperate us from the government and give us more control. it remains to be this way, the argument is that guns kill people and that it provides a false sence of security, but if you put a gun in a gun safe its not going to kill someone, its going to remain there until used. If someone is to break in your house and try to rob your household they would have much less chance of actually getting away with it than if you didn't have a gun.
Posted by: AnonymousKeep The Guns.
As someone who has successfully defended his home from unauthorized invasion, I can tell you (the reader) in no uncertain terms that I would not be here today if it weren't for guns. The right for a person to defend themselves is a must.
"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."
While we have a military to do the bulk of American defense and deterrence of aggression, the reason why America will never be invaded successfully is because of the number of guns that are in civilian possession. In addition to stopping foreign aggression and occupation, this also deters the prospect of domestic oppression from any regime that attempts to force its will unlawfully on the people.
In neighborhoods that are in cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. where there is strict gun control, you have some of the highest murder rates in the whole country; whereas in towns that have few if any restrictions on firearms, there are few if any deaths by gunshot, and most of those deaths are done in self-defense.
Even criminals themselves seek to get guns out of law abiding citizens because they are not scared of cops, as everyone likes to think they are. Criminals are scared of the very people they are targeting being armed and capable to defend themselves. If a criminal knows that every possible target they can go after is most likely armed, they won't make the attempt because crime is about opportunity.
On the subject of assault weapons. While there is no pressing need for a civilian to have something as expensive and maintenance heavy as a fully automatic weapon, this is not to say that there needs to be a complete ban on these weapons. There are those out there that know how to use these 'tools' and are responsible enough to know how, and when to use them. Military veterans and ex-police officers are trained in their uses and know how to use them well enough and should be allowed to buy them if they are willing to make the financial investment.Posted by: HrottoYou need to defend yourself.
If you outlaw guns, then the only ones with them are the outlaws. What happens then if one decides to break into your home knowing you wont have an equal means of defense? A bat wont do much against an AR-15 or a 12-gauge shotgun. The 2nd amendment is also subliminally the reason why we get to retain our 1st amendment rights. Despite what anyone believes, the government can call martial law at anytime, destroying all of your rights. Having firearms is what protects us. For every one crime committed with one, there are three cases of people saved by one. But NOOOO. The media can't publicize THAT now can they?
Posted by: AnonymousIT DOES MATTER
Do your research in history and see what happened when guns were banned in countries. Do your research on what happened with Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and Mao Tse-Tung. Do not be a fool, this is serious. History has its way of repeating itself. Those are not the only cases in which you take the weapons from people you automatically have control over them for WE THE PEOPLE cannot defend ourselves -_-. WAKE UP
Posted by: AnonymousGive me tyranny?
It won't be long until martial law becomes the only rule of law THEY'RE DEFINITELY going to enforce! Who's to say which Constitutional Amendment would be next for us to lose? Freedom of worship? Or, how about free speech, or maybe due process? BE AWARE AMERICA! America is going to pay dearly for our neglecting Him!
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are in are blood.
What would happen if another world war started and every body had to defend for them selves and all you that say no gun don't have any guns. What would happen to your family and children. What if you had to watch somebody you have never seen before kill your family right in front of you and you couldn't do anything about it. Maybe assault rifles and to large and clips but not guns. How would we get meat form deer and elk and such thing when we don't have any guns. Besides we have had guns for hundreds of years and why would we stop now?
Posted by: AnonymousInalienable rights of Man.
The right to defend myself and my family from tyranny is an inalienable right. God-given. What God gives, man cannot take away, not without a fight. I will not surrender my weapons. I will not bow down to tyranny, and I will not comply with unconstitutional laws. That's all I have to say.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because if guns kill people, then my pen misspelled the words on my essay.
The laws in place now only control the people who fallow the laws. Law breakers will break the new laws just as they break the current laws. If the preferred weapon of the world was a sword, then the government would be trying to control the use and ownership of swords. The goal of people in the world shouldn't be the destruction of tools that we use. The goal for "US" should be to STOP THE PEOPLE who use the tools incorrectly/improperly. Guns are tools, just as a pen is a tool.
Posted by: Anonymous"THOSE WHO WOULD SACRIFICE FREEDOM FOR SECURITY DESERVE NEITHER"
Gun control would not reduce crime, especially here in the US. We need to better enforce current legislation rather that enacting more feel good legislation. Every American should have the right to have a firearm unless they show they are dangerous or mentally unstable. The firearms are not the problem, gangs and criminals are.
Posted by: AnonymousWe need the amendment to deter tyranny in Government.
If you look at the list of countries by civilian gun ownership, the best countries in the world are at the top, with the United States leading (of course there are some exceptions). The worst countries are at the bottom. Crime rates do not matter. The Second Amendment doesn't say that if crime went up, the right to keep and bear arms will be restricted. The right remains forever. God Bless America.
Posted by: AnonymousGun control is already strict enough.
There have been the recent tragedies where a man shot up a school, but it was not him that owned the gun. His mother made the terrible decision. We have the right to life, liberty, and property. We have the right to have guns to protect ourselves and our families.
Posted by: AnonymousWithout the Second Amendment everything will fall apart.
Our founding fathers enshrined the second amendment in our Constitution. This was the basic human tenants of LIBERTY, FREEDOM, PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, and many more. They then gave us the Second Amendment to prevent some person or governmental body TAKING those basic human rights away from us. This Amendment needs to stay in place as is.
Posted by: AnonymousRather than repealed, perhaps re-worded would be a a better answer to the problems imposed by the 2nd Amendment.
The Second Amendment is a hallmark of American Freedom, but it gives too much to people who may abuse the system. Case in point, if you allow everybody to have a gun, criminals can find them easily. But, if you only allow certain groups access to guns, the criminals will still be able to get a hold of them. Perhaps, what should be done is to repeal it, after all.
Posted by: GlisteningNelsonNO.
The law was designed specially to allow people to defend themselves from the an oppressive government, criminals, invaders, and other threats. Its like a last line of defense, and one reason America would be virtually impossible to invade.
Posted by: OberHerrThe 2nd Amendment should never be repealed.
The reason for the 2nd Amendment today is just as relevant as it was when it was written and will be in the future. The threat of our government straying away from freedom is as possible as any other country in history that fell into the wrong hands and oppressed their people. Any other argument on details is trumped by that simple truth.
Posted by: AnonymousAmericans refuse to accept tyranny!
The free people of America would lose every right they have and the efforts of nearly 237 years of world leadership in democracy. The efforts of the far left radicals to bring down and destroy the Constitution of the United States would be eminent once they have been disarmed. Only the criminals would have weapons.
Posted by: clanierWe should be allowed to defend ourselves; guns should stay.
There are a good number of law abiding citizens with guns. The second amendment needs to stay because if only the law abiding citizens get their guns collected, how would they defend themselves from a dangerous intruder with a gun? Bring a knife to the gun fight? No, the 2nd amendment needs to stay. The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they passed it.
Posted by: MaymayCitizens need their own protection.
I've heard a lot of the arguments from the other side concerning "what will you need them for?" The police owe no legal duty to protect citizens and a court has ruled they only need to enforce the laws. Home land security is as loyal to the government as the military is. If our government rules that firearms be confiscated, they will not protect us then and they will stand side by side and hand in hand with the military and Commander in Chief.
Posted by: AnonymousThe current Government of the U.S. is NOT to be trusted!
The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in place for a reason. That reason is currently more prevalent than at any other point in our history. With FEMA camps, executive orders, the incredible and unexplained number of rounds of ammunition recently purchased by Homeland Security and the dollar being driven into the ground, it would be foolish indeed to give up our method of protecting ourselves and those we love.
Posted by: Anonymous"It won't ever happen here."
I hear this argument all the time when I hear anti-gun nuts speaking about the 2nd Amendment and a tyrannical government. Problem is, it already has happened. I guess people just forget about the Revolutionary War. You know, the one that we waged against the tyrannical British government back in the late 1700's. It's happened all around the world multiple times, and is still happening today, yet the ignorant fools don't see it or just don't want to see it.
As if a tyrannical government wasn't a good enough reason to have the weapons I have, there's also the criminal element of the world and US. These people don't abide by the law and have many, many weapons at their disposal. Many more weapons than you, I, or the average person has. Why do I need my AK-47? Because the bad guy has an AK-47, and probably a full auto at that. Anyone remember any of the riots that have taken place in the US? Ever wonder why there were a few shops that weren't looted and destroyed? I'll tell you, it's because the shop owners loaded up their AK-47's and defended what was theirs, their shops, their families, and their lives.
If you anti-gun nuts have any more stupid questions, please just keep them to yourselves.Posted by: AnonymousThe federal Government hasn't any authority over the 2nd Amendment.
History is what guides me to this decision. We created the government and mankind is very far from perfect. Power would accrue to despots, and the government we created would easily turn against it's own people, so absolutely not. We the people should not tolerate any laws they put in play that does amend the constitution.
Posted by: AnonymousThe 2nd Amendment was given to us by the blood of those who fought for our freedoms!
No, it should not be repealed. It was put in place to keep the future generations from a controlling government! You give up your freedom to protect yourself and you leave yourself open to no way to protect yourself from criminals or from a government that wants to control you!
Posted by: AnonymousHistory repeats itself.
Societies since the beginning of time have faced more danger from their governments than from an armed neighbor. Tragedies are terrible and we want to stop them from happening, however as it has been proved over time - when we exchange freedom for safety, we receive neither, but when we place freedom above all else, we receive more freedom and safety. Don't believe me, look at the history books and judge for yourself.
Posted by: Anonymouswe need guns
I agree that the second amendment should remain as it is because people need to protect themselves from robbery and muggings car jacks etc… But some people use it for robbery’s car jacks muggings etc... So people should only be allowed to use guns if they keep them at home unless they get a concealed carry permit then they can carry it with them but not in stores Unless you are the owner of the store. Because guns don’t kill people, people that aren’t responsible with guns kill people.
Posted by: therighttobeararmThe 2nd amendment is about freedom and liberty.
Without the 2nd amendment all freedoms will fall. The 2nd amendment allows law-abiding people to protect themselves and preserves the freedoms our nation was based on. The first thing dictators and communist regimes do when they come into power is to disarm the citizenry. It is the most effectual way to enslave the people to their tyranny. If millions of people own firearms, there isn't any government that can enslave them. Many, if not most in the U.S. Military would probably turn on the government if the government became tyrannical and wanted the military to fire upon it's own citizens. Beware of those that want to do away with the 2nd amendment.
Posted by: AnonymousTo protect citizens from tyranny
Whether government or average criminal, you need to protect yourself. Remember, cops only show up once a crime scene is made, not when the crime is committed. No one is there to save you but yourself. Sure, you could defend yourself without one, but I would really not suggest it. I mean when you call 911, you are literally asking for an armed person to save you, why not cut out the middle man and protect yourself (obviously call 911 afterward :P).
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people-people kill people
No, the citizens who have the guns legally and have gone through the proper certification are not the ones who typically will go into a school and shoot it up. I admit it is so sad to hear that happen, but how will taking away my brothers' rifle help, or my Godfathers' guns? He has some that will be considered too "scary" and therefore illegal. If it had a different handle, however, he could keep the gun. The inmates and people like that are more likely to kill people. Also, if more people packed, then there would be less shooting. There was a shooting in Arizona I think and a man pulled out his concealed weapon and stopped the shooting. What would have happened if someone at the school shootings had a gun? They probably would stop. They have stopped in other countries where the teachers have guns and are certified to use them.
Posted by: Anonymous