Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms absolute?

Asked by: Juris
  • The right to bear arms is absolute, or SHOULD be.

    The right to bear arms is so much similar to saying "We should have a weapon incase we should perform self defense." I feel that the government should not have the ability to take away our right to defend ourselves. If the government is taking away the 2nd ammendment, then that is the same thing as saying we have no way of and do not need to defend ourselves.

  • Yes, I believe that peoples right to keep and bear arms is absolute

    I do believe that peoples right to keep bear arms is absolute and should be upheld as absolute. If someone attacks you and you have a feeling that your very life may be at stake, you should have the absolute power and right to act within your rights to protect your life by any means necessary.

  • No rights are absolute

    Even the rights to life and liberty can be taken away, so why should the right to bear arms be completely unconstrained? The right to bear arms confirmed an earlier right (from English common law) which had the phrase "as allowed by the law" attached. If only they had written that into the 2nd amendment.

  • No, None of Our Rights Are Absolute

    The right to bear arms is certainly not absolute. Freedom of
    speech is limited by slander and libel laws. Freedom of religion is limited by laws
    that forbid parents from denying children needed medical treatment for
    religious reasons. The right of assembly is limited by the need for reasonable
    permits and the need to keep order. All of everyone’s rights are limited for the benefit
    of society, for example to protect public safety. The right to bear arms is also limited,
    because the days of the Wild West are over.

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