Amazon.com Widgets
  • Werwerwwerw werwer werw wer

    Ew rwer w rwe r ee r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
    r r rr r r r r r r r r r t t y rf sakfd;sdf f asdfsad;fkqw f;qkwfpsd oa;oke qw;lf nfdoiha fo adsflqewf whf o;sd fohsdfoi qo dfqwje hnfd oaopsd aposh dfqowh fwoqh erwer e

  • We should work on the people, Not the guns

    Guns are not the source of the problem, Many other countries have gun laws and do not have as many issues as America. Simply, We must provide a better atmosphere for the citizens of America. Limit the amount of bad news, Introduce better people to the world, Give the world less reasons to hate the world and the people around them.

  • Inherent right to self protection

    No competent and responsible person should be denied the right to bear arms. Self protection is an inherent right. People who think gun violence will go away if you take away guns, fail to see that the violence will still be there. Lets address the violence not the gun. Murder is already against the law, more laws will not fix anything.

  • Inherent right to self protection

    No competent and responsible person should be denied the right to bear arms. Self protection is an inherent right. People who think gun violence will go away if you take away guns, fail to see that the violence will still be there. Lets address the violence not the gun. Murder is already against the law, more laws will not fix anything.

  • The second amendment will always be relevant.

    The second amendment is a deterrent in the least and still has a legitimate place in our constitution. We as a people need to keep up with regulations that need to evolve as fast and keep up with the technology and progress that happens in this industry. We need to figure out who is safely capable of owning and handing them.

  • We need peace

    We need protection because it can save our self from anybody y that trying to hurt you like trying to rape you or in any kind of way.
    Guns can hurt others and can cause death and others are lucky to survive, why do people do this. We want peace in this world. Why

  • Hell yeah if does

    We need gun to keep us protected, for example if someone is trying to steal something or break into your house, what are they gonna fear if there is no guns? What’s gonna keep them out? How are you gonna protect yourself and your loved ones? I stand with the 2nd!

  • Yes the 2nd amendment still apply

    I know that will argue and say that many people died from guns. I believe that guns is for self defense. I had many saying that the Constitution is fake and which is not true. I will not let someone take away my life by killing me. Rights will never be taken away.

  • It is relevant

    Without firearms the government would have to reason to be afraid of their citizens. They could easily have an uprising and change our government to a dictatorship. Without citizens with weapons we could do nothing about it. Also if someone is being robbed they have a way to protect themselves.

  • Does the Second Amendment Still Apply Today: An Intellectual Perspective

    Justice is a funny thing, wherein John Locke's theory of Relativity towards the Categorical Imperative, he takes a rather Hobbesian approach to the subject. The Marxist ideology expressed towards the Second Amendment towards the Botswanan constitution rectifies the fact that capitalism really does end the bourgeoisie, and thus gun rights are to be permeated.

  • The bigger picture..

    The 2nd Amendment should only be relevant to a certain extent. Yes you should be able to protect yourself from intruders. Yes you should be able to carry certain types of weapons. But the point is. Why must we own automatic weapons with high large capacity ammunition magazines? To protect yourself if the government turns on it's people? To protect yourselves if our country gets invaded? The U.S. spends 54% of it's entire spending on the military. We spend this much, so that citizens don't have to worry about invasions. And if we did decide to go to war with our own government. We would have no chance in hell to stop them with simply AR-15's.
    People that are pro-gun believe that politicians want to take all their guns away. What they don't realize is that their only trying to take the guns away that are overwhelmingly dangerous to society. A majority of pro-gun people believe if you take the guns away, people will somehow still find a way to purchase them, therefore there will still be mass shootings. I disagree. Who in their right mind is going to sell to someone with a mental illness. If these guns like AR-15's do get banned than I guarantee you there will be no more mass shootings involving any AR-15's.
    The goal isn't to stop mass shootings from happening. That's an almost impossible task due to the mental illness in this country. The goal is to decrease the number of fatalities involving mass shootings by taking away guns that are highly overcapacitized with quick fire rates.

  • The bigger picture..

    The 2nd Amendment should only be relevant to a certain extent. Yes you should be able to protect yourself from intruders. Yes you should be able to carry certain types of weapons. But the point is. Why must we own automatic weapons with high large capacity ammunition magazines? To protect yourself if the government turns on it's people? To protect yourselves if our country gets invaded? The U.S. spends 54% of it's entire spending on the military. We spend this much, so that citizens don't have to worry about invasions. And if we did decide to go to war with our own government. We would have no chance in hell to stop them with simply AR-15's.
    People that are pro-gun believe that politicians want to take all their guns away. What they don't realize is that their only trying to take the guns away that are overwhelmingly dangerous to society. A majority of pro-gun people believe if you take the guns away, people will somehow still find a way to purchase them, therefore there will still be mass shootings. I disagree. Who in their right mind is going to sell to someone with a mental illness. If these guns like AR-15's do get banned than I guarantee you there will be no more mass shootings involving any AR-15's.
    The goal isn't to stop mass shootings from happening. That's an almost impossible task due to the mental illness in this country. The goal is to decrease the number of fatalities involving mass shootings by taking away guns that are highly overcapacitized with quick fire rates.

  • The bigger picture..

    The 2nd Amendment should only be relevant to a certain extent. Yes you should be able to protect yourself from intruders. Yes you should be able to carry certain types of weapons. But the point is. Why must we own automatic weapons with high large capacity ammunition magazines? To protect yourself if the government turns on it's people? To protect yourselves if our country gets invaded? The U.S. spends 54% of it's entire spending on the military. We spend this much, so that citizens don't have to worry about invasions. And if we did decide to go to war with our own government. We would have no chance in hell to stop them with simply AR-15's.
    People that are pro-gun believe that politicians want to take all their guns away. What they don't realize is that their only trying to take the guns away that are overwhelmingly dangerous to society. A majority of pro-gun people believe if you take the guns away, people will somehow still find a way to purchase them, therefore there will still be mass shootings. I disagree. Who in their right mind is going to sell to someone with a mental illness. If these guns like AR-15's do get banned than I guarantee you there will be no more mass shootings involving any AR-15's.
    The goal isn't to stop mass shootings from happening. That's an almost impossible task due to the mental illness in this country. The goal is to decrease the number of fatalities involving mass shootings by taking away guns that are highly overcapacitized with quick fire rates.

  • School Shootings are one of many reasons to ban owning personal guns.

    Teenagers are able to get guns, and not just basic harmless guns, automatics! There are school shootings all over the US. With guns out there more shootings can happen. It is proven that each year there are more and more shootings. How was Columbine or Sandy Hook not enough to ban guns?

  • No, the second amendment no longer applies.

    When the second amendment was written ,the military and civilians had similar firearms; the amendments man purpose was to help people defend themselves against corrupt government, but with the advancements in military technology and spending since World War Two this has become impossible. An AR 15 doesn't stand a chance against a city destroying nuclear missile and a 9mm cannot take down a multibillion dollar F22 Raptor. With the Us spending over $400 billion a year on the military the thought of civilian defense against it is becoming futile.

  • Law abiding citizens

    Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen........ Until they use a gun in the commission of a crime. The more "law abiding" gun owners there are the more likely they are to use that gun in the commission of a crime. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

  • The second amendment does not apply today.

    The framers of the constitution did not anticipate modern fire arms. In the time of the foundation of the government, guns were slow and inaccurate. Also, people genuinely needed guns to protect themselves from wild animals in rural parts of the country. Today, the second amendment is anachronistic and it should be repealed.

  • No, the second amendment is no longer relevant.

    The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was written hundreds of years ago, at a time when there was no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the challenges we currently face. I believe that if they were around today to see the problems we're having with guns, they wouldn't have a problem with enacting serious gun control laws.

  • No Way Dude

    YEET my dogger this is an obvious no my guy. All of my comrades agree with me. As a yung blood in the community, it is no longer relevant anymore, as it applies to militia in the 18th and 19th centuries my dudes. Every one that said yes is dumb

  • Authority control vs citizens control

    The point of the 2nd amendment is always to protect the citizens against government tyranny and the goal is right. The thing is, the counter argument is also true. Weapons are not only used for self defense, they can be used by the population for military revolution against the government and ensure a tyranny by itself. It means that in any case the risk of a tyranny always applies. Now we have 2 options: if all the citizens (majority) posses weapons, the government cant track everyone and ensure the safety of the free, democratic rule. On the other hand, if only the government posses weapons, all the citizens can criticize and limit the government's power by any democratic tools (court, 2nd house) and so, ensuring that government tyranny wont be applied.


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