Amazon.com Widgets
  • Know your 2nd amendment.

    "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. "

    First, Look at the background as to the circumstances that existed around that time. Both sides had very similar weapons (muskets, Flint lock, Muzzle/breach loaders) that used very similar ammo. Because it gave us a fighting chance, The British military wanted to take them away but failed. Had we allowed it, There is no way we could have won. Our forefathers knew that some day, We may have to defend our nation (free state) from an invading force. Obviously, A foreign military will use military grade weapons in an attack so to have a fighting chance, We too should be allowed the same type of weapons.
    Of course, Just as all rights, Some people will not have the right to bear arms of any kind. That would be people who pose a reasonable threat against U. S. Citizens.

  • Armaments, Not Firearms

    It is a common misconception that the "arms" in 'keep and bear arms' refers to firearms. It does not. Arms is in fact invoking armaments, Which are military weapons and equipment. Thus, The right to keep and bear arms is the right to have anything which it is legal for the government and its agents to own - including, But not limited to tanks, Fighter jets and nuclear weapons. The only way to constitutionally limit the right to own such destructive items is for the government to remove items of that nature from its possession and legally restraint itself from procuring them in the future. Any law creating an individual imbalance of arms between a free citizen and any single agent of government is unconstitutional.

  • Tyrannical Governments have always been around. .

    And to believe that it will never happen again is pure ignorance. Nazi Germany, China, USSR, Yugoslavia, Vietnam the list goes on. All had their firearms taken away because it was to be a right only for military personnel. . . Look how that turned out. Non of them could/can do anything to revolt back against their own government when they were treated as slaves and puppets.

  • All gun control is unconstitutional

    Gun control is the way the government tries to take away your right to bear arms so they feel they are in control that is the same way Hitler gained power over Germany and started WWII because now he was in control and no one could go against him that is exactly going to happen to the US.

  • Shall not be infringed

    The 2nd Amendment clearly states that necessary to the security of a free state is a well regulated (trained/equipped) militia, The right of the people to bear arms. Militias should have the same capability as our military. When the government has too much power over the people we are prisoners. "An armed man is a citizen, An unarmed man is a subject" -Unknown

  • In most cases

    Obviously our Forefathers wrote the Bill of Rights and in the Second Amendment, They stated that we "Have the right to bear arms. " Of course we all have the right to have guns. Sure it isn't a good idea to tote LMG's in public but still we should be able to have rifles, Pistols, And shotguns. For me, The only limit we should have on weapons is anything heavy duty and automatic such as the aforementioned LMG's. Also, We should not let anyone with a history of violent crimes (including rape, Assault, Murder, And robbery which is burglary but with force) and for anyone who has repeated cases of public drunkenness. Yes, Mass shooting are terrible, But what if someone in the crowd had their own gun and could have fought back? So many lives would have been saved.

  • Yes of course

    Gun control is very unconstitutional, It states "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" that means that we should be on par with the military and have a well regulated militia, Run by the people and that has access to military technology like tanks, Aircraft and full-auto firearms

  • Yes and no

    It depends on how you define gun control I define gun control as the taking or restricting of certain arms due to their capabilities. In this definition the answer is so clearly yes because of the second amendment you'd have to have been dropped on youre head, Fed paint chip cereal and hit by a bus 32 times at the age of 7 to think the answer is no. However if youre saying gun control is disallowing connived violent criminals from purchasing a firearm then yes that is constitutional. The moment you infringe on another persons rights is the moment you lose youre. Same thing goes when the government tries to take our guns, When they do that (which they already started the process years ago) that is the moment it is okay to fight back against tyranny.

  • Its the person not the gun, More guns save lives than take.

    When someone dies in a car crash, The person is blamed not the car, More people die to cars every year, Than guns yet cars aren't banned. More than four times as many people are stabbed to death than killed with rifles of any kind. The constitution says "Shall not be infringed". Now this question says "All gun control is unconstitutional. " I just gave you the answer, Its yes!

  • Attempt to restrict any other right in the bill of rights (speech, Press, Religion, Etc. ) or even supposed "rights" like abortion and see what happens.

    Every other constitutional right has no restrictions; freedom of speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, Due process, Cruel and unusual punishment, Etc. If the government (state or federal) attempted to restrict peoples right to free speech people would lose their minds. Same with religion, Assembly, Press, Etc. Just watch what happens with abortion; it isn't even a constitutional right yet it is given more respect by politicians, Presidents, And the judiciary than the second amendment. It was written because the founding fathers feared that eventually the federal or state governments would attempt to subdue the will of the American people. The phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is very simple. People always say "but not literally, Duh" well then apply that to the freedoms of speech, Religion, Due process, And protection from cruel and unusual punishment. "You have the freedom of speech per se but not really", "you theoretically are protected from cruel and unusual punishment but since it isn't literal were going to water board you", Etc. And last is the double standard gun owners face compared to that of muslims who commit terrorist attacks in the name of Islam. Any time an attack happens and the perpetrator(s) is/are muslim the media, Politicians, Advocacy groups, And celebrities take to social media and declare that it is an isolated incident and that that person or group doesn't represent all muslims. Yet LITERALLY ANYTIME a person with a gun (note: legal gun owner OR criminal) commits any type of crime all gun owners, Gun rights groups, Gun manufacturers, Gun shops, NRA, And anyone who has ever smiled at those people is accused of being a racist homophobic bigot homicidal maniac and any other name without hesitation. Often times criminals are lumped in with law abiding gun owners and it is extremely aggravating. I have owned an AR-15 rifle and several other guns for years and I have never once hurt anyone or thought about hurting anyone. There are approximately 400 million guns in this country; if gun violence was as serious as the media and politicians say it is then why are more people killed by hammers, Obesity, Cancer, And suicide INDIVIDUALLY than all gun deaths combined? Just something to think about.

  • Mentally disturbed and violent criminals have proven themselves undeserving of arms.

    You cannot on one hand say mentally disturbed people are the only ones shooting up schools and on the other hand say no gun control is permissible. If that is your interpretation of the constitution, If you need it spelled out or if you think the founding fathers were that opposed to gun control, Then it should immediately be a bipartisan effort to do so.

    Very few Democrats in the US actually want to 'take away all of our guns. ' The vast majority want sensible controls. Violent criminals, Mentally disturbed, Et cetera. To accept the proposition is to say you're ok with the worst violent offenders being released from jail and immediately purchasing a gun. The most psycopathic men being released from the psych ward and immediately purchasing a gun. No one is this dense.

  • *Salon “The failure of the Second Amendment: Our founders got this one wrong in every respect” +others (children's lives has more value than a document)

    * The Huffington Post “Amend The Second Amendment To End Gun Violence
    "Last year the Violence Policy Center found that a gun owner is 32 times more likely to use their weapon in criminal homicide rather than in self-defense. Usually the first reason a gun advocate says there is a need to own guns is the self-protection myth. Now that that myth has been debunked and it has been proven that justifiable homicides are rare, We must move past the old self-defense narrative and think with clearer heads when discussing gun ownership. "

    * Huffington Post “The Second Amendment”
    “Saying that Americans have “a fundamental right to bear arms” is not accurate. The work of our Founding Fathers gave Americans the privilege to bear arms. Unfortunately, Many people use the word “right”, When in reality they are speaking of a “privilege”. ”

    * Salon. . .
    “However, The question remains as to whether or not this aged bit of legislation has actually accomplished its goal. Have militias effectively contributed to the defense of the nation and has a freely armed private population made America fundamentally safer and more secure society where life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness exist by virtue of a well-armed populace? ”
    “The fact that the United States has and continues experience staggering levels of gun-related deaths, Despite presently having well over 330 million guns in the country, Is clear demonstration that being well armed as a society does not equate to being safe in a broader sense.
    This makes for a strong argument that the Second Amendment is a failed amendment – a hopelessly entrenched piece of legislation that has continually fallen short of its expectations and has contributed more to depriving Americans of the rights of life, Liberty, And the pursuit of happiness than to protecting those same rights. ”
    * The New York Observer “A Public Health Approach and a Call to Action to End Gun Violence”
    “Unintentional firearm injuries steal the life of a child under the age of 15 every six days, Typically involving a friend or a sibling. And guns play a significant role in domestic violence and violence against women. Over the past 25 years, More intimate partner homicides in the U. S. Have been committed with guns than with all other weapons combined. ”
    “Of the 216 daily victims of gun violence who survive, 43 were shot unintentionally, Including an average of eight children and teens. Nevertheless, One-third of homes with children in America have guns and nearly 1. 7 million children live in a home with an unlocked and loaded gun. ”

    * Huffington Post “ISIS And The NRA: Similarities Abound”
    - Institutionally, Both organizations are remorseless about the deaths of victims
    - Both use fear and intimidation to obtain their objectives
    - Both assume their ideology is superior to the wishes of the majority of citizens
    - Both have intensely loyal followers
    - Both recruit and indoctrinate members who are ignorant of the basic facts
    - Neither organization will apologize for the harm they cause

  • It's a paradox.

    I understand. Yes, The military should have guns. But why do we need access to them? Think about it. Why do we think we need guns? To protect ourselves. From what? Sticks and knives? No. From other guns. But wait! If no one is allowed to own guns, No one will have to be afraid of them! That's my point. I hope, At least, You consider it.

  • The constitution has general guidelines. They can't be taken 100% literally

    The Founding Fathers wrote this to prevent a tyrannical government from disarming its people to control them. Children do not need guns to prevent the government from doing this, Nor would very dangerous people need guns to defend freedom. The government's role is also to protect the people, And arming every single civilian puts people in danger

  • You don't have the right to shoot me. I have the right to live.

    This is my body. My right to live outweighs your alleged right to shoot me. It is wrong to take a human life. If you want mega gun rights, Join the military. I am so tired of promurder gun activists thinking it is okay to commit murder. If you shoot me, You are a murder.

  • Guns And Societal Knowledge Improves; Constitution Should Too

    When the constitution was invented, Only guns that are fired once and then have to be reloaded again and still have a low accuracy rate were the only gun problem the founding fathers had to face in their time. Never did they have to think that auto-rifles and machine guns would become a thing, If they did, They would've flat out wrote more into the amendment more on that issue.

    In today's society, Where mental illness is now being on the surface and researched more, The modern dangers of guns, And just the plain dangers of humans themselves, There must be a form of control and safety implemented to protect those who don't have the will to hold a gun or the responsibilities to hold onto said guns.

    It is not only guns that we should be worried about, But humans themselves. To allow humans to go rampage with weapons only meant to cause fear, Bodily harm or death without an authority reasoning, Would be inane.

    But if we're to conclude onto a single amendment that was done in the late 1700s, Then by all means, Yes gun control could be considered unconstitutional. As stated by the Constitution itself, "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 word 'arms' only specifics the group of guns of that yearly time the constitution was officially published and not the future implementations. The founding fathers have allowed the constitution to be able to be changed over the long period of times specifically to battle out future generations' problems that they don't have to worry about in their time frame.

    The bills of rights doesn't have the ability to be changed, But amendments can overcome certain elements in the bill of rights. With gun problems be rampant in the modern United States, It should be held as a topic for change and for the safety of the people, No matter the political party issue on guns in general.

    We as humans should look more into the issue of guns for our own sense of safety rather than the issue of a 'freedom' being taken from us. Future generations shouldn't have to suffer of past dangers still coming to haunt them because of our own inane excuses of 'freedom being taken away' while there are countries that ban guns outright from the very beginning to including its authority figures but are still thriving as a country.

    Sources:
    https://billofrightsinstitute. Org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
    https://constitutioncenter. Org/blog/what-does-it-take-to-repeal-a-constitutional-amendment
    https://www. Law. Cornell. Edu/wex/second_amendment

  • Potential terrorists should not own weapons.

    Obviously. If a man recently released from prison for attempting a terrorist attack wants to buy an AR-15, We should say HELL no. If you believe this is unconstitutional, Then you should hopefully support amending the constitution so it is not unconstitutional anymore. That is all I have to say.

  • I am mixed.

    I believe responsible people with a clear background check who are OVER 18 should be allowed to have firearms. People under 18 are somehow getting guns and school shootings are out of control. This is where I am mixed. I don't believe it is unconstitutional, But people should be cautious of what things heir kids are getting into.

  • Not everyone deserves a gun

    Mentally disabled people (including those with autism) have no right to own a gun, Since they do not have the mental capacity to handle such power. Convicted felons don't have the right either because they may use it for the wrong reasons. However, We shouldn't take guns from muslims since that would be discrimination, And against freedom of religion.

  • Gun should be constitutional

    Okay, All you idiots that want to take away guns and anything revolving around THE UNITED STATES SECOND AMENDMENT, Good luck. Y'all will have to take it out of most southerns hands. Our great nation was based off guns and the second amendment. If someone were to break into my home, Good luck, Its our right to bear arms and I sleep next to my pistol. I go hunting to put food in my freezer and provide for my family. Its our right to have any guns we want. If i want to have a. 50 cal next to me in bed and someone breaks in you bet believe ill be using it to protect myself and family.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
ladiesman says2018-11-11T21:49:22.097
Every time there has been a mass shooting, The National Rifle Association tries to take the subject off guns by claiming, "This is a mental health issue". Well my response to that is, "What do you propose we do about that? ".

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.