• Define It More

    I do not believe the Second Amendment should be repealed and I do not believe the government should suspend people's rights to have firearms. I do, however, believe that the second amendment is ambiguous and does need to be redefined. I think the sooner we address that issue, the better.

  • No, repealing any of our rights granted by the Constitution would be wrong.

    Our second amendment rights grant us the power to defend ourselves. We need our second amendment rights to defend our first amendment rights. The founding fathers had a plan for the people to protect themselves from terrorism both foreign and domestic. Hitler was convinced the Jewish people did not need to carry weapons and promoted an active gun registration.

  • For the people

    No, we do not need to appeal or revise the second amendment, we need to instead quit trying to take away guns, and listen to the second amendment. The right of the people to keep and carry firearms should not be infringed, so we do not need to try to take them.

  • The right exists whether it's on paper or not. Repealing means nada.

    Repealing the second amendment would change nothing and would prove inconsequential. The Bill of Rights does not create any rights nor does it grant anyone any freedoms. The Second Amendment is nothing more than a written or declaration The existence of an inalienable right to keep and bear arms that was bestowed upon us by our Creator at birth. Just because you physically erase the words off paper does not mean that in doing so I have been stripped of a right granted to me by God. If we repealed the first amendment, would you lose your freedom of speech? The answer is no. The government cannot constitutionally or morally deprive me of a right that they did not give me. They get away with it now because people have been taught through every information source that our rights are really privileges allowed to us by our kind, caring government; privileges that they can revoke at any time of we don't behave. A free country should be able to do and own whatever we want so long as in doing so we don't infringe on the equal rights of those around us and if one person behaves badly they are held responsible and not me

  • Don't do it!!

    The second Amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that do you not get? Long story short, it is there to safeguard us from tyrannical Governments. It is meant so that we can stand up against an unconstitutional and oppressive Government. Back then, muskets were top notch military technology, we need equal firepower to stand up against a Government that has lost its balance. Today, the government has tanks, drones, and all sorts of stuff that would bludgeon us to the dirt. We need our modern technology to combat theirs. Honestly, the only difference between an Ar15 and other civilian firearms is how it looks and how it operates. That being said, the ar15 looks exactly like the military m4a1, but the operational capabilities and how it works are completely different. We need our guns now more than ever!!

  • That's a horrible idea.

    It starts with the second amendment . If they can repeal one amendment they can repeal all of them like freedom of religion and freedom of speech. We need guns to defend our selves from criminals. Sure we need to do a better job with background checks but we should not repeal the second amendment.

  • No, No, No

    If anybody intends to argue that the Second Amendment is not necessary, then it becomes a matter of time before any of the other amendments are deemed unnecessary as well. The same argument goes for rewriting the Second Amendment. The problem isn't with the right to have firearms. The problem is that the government doesn't hold their people to a high enough standard in using firearms.

  • The second amendment is fine.

    If you actually read the second amendment, there is nowhere that states that the average Joe can tote as many guns as he wants. The right to bear arms was for militias to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic. It didn't mean to order an assault rifle on a magazine.

  • No, people have the right of self defense

    Just because times have changed, doesn't mean that people no longer have the right to defend themselves and their families. There are already gun laws in place, and most criminals who use guns obtain them illegally anyway. So, the only thing that stricter gun laws would do is keep guns out of the hands of regular people looking to defend themselves. Criminals would still find a way to get a hold of guns.

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

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