Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is especially true for democrats. However I have noticed that few people, essentially what people think of as "country folk" believe in the 2nd Amendment for the actual reason that is given in the document
- "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."
Even many people who do believe that people should have the right to own guns will do so for libertarian reasons; however not out of fear of government takeover. Many people think that the wording doesn't allow for any restrictions - so you could say to a logical absurdity that people should be able to own nuclear weapons.
So should the 2nd amendment simply be amended to keep extreme weapons (tanks & nuclear warheads) out of reach? Maybe we could add weapon classifications such as "1-10" for civilian weapons & "M" for military grade weapons. I am just coming up with a potential solution to a problem that many people are arguing about constantly.
Seeing as this issue was so important that it was grafted as the 2nd Amendment, it is should be pretty important. Is it out of line with today's modernist views?
So do you believe that the 2nd Amendment is essentially still a legitimate reason for owning a weapon? Or do you believe that people should have the right for other (call it libertarian) reasons? Or do you want to see that people have less to no guns at all?
The 2nd Amendment means that I have a right, simply for the fact that I'm alive, to own firearms. It is not a right "given" to me by the Government. Instead of trying to act like the Government has the authority to take that right, I ask why don't we actually fully enforce our laws for those who use firearms to commit crimes?
In this country, we are "innocent until proven guilty". Those who are against the 2nd Amendment, or want to make modifications to it, are stating that we are "guilty before being proven innocent". That's not what this country is about.
Where's the poll choice for "get rid of the militia part to finally put the debate to bed"?
Here's the 1776 version of the PA Constitution that predates the US Constitution. I think it's a good example of what was intended for the Second.
Quote:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Here is the current version from 1790:
Quote:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
You can never have an efficient totalitarian police state, when it has to be “benevolent†and fearful of millions of armed citizens. And you can’t disarm millions of armed citizens when they won’t tell you where the arms are. And you can’t arrest them until you criminalize their disobedience to “reasonable†gun restrictions and “common sense†registration. And you can’t tolerate their belief that they have an “endowed right†to self defense against tyranny, that supersedes your political power of the bigger gun.
• An Armed Populace Fears No Government.
• A Disarmed Populace Fears All Government.
This is especially true for democrats. However I have noticed that few people, essentially what people think of as "country folk" believe in the 2nd Amendment for the actual reason that is given in the document
- "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."
Even many people who do believe that people should have the right to own guns will do so for libertarian reasons; however not out of fear of government takeover. Many people think that the wording doesn't allow for any restrictions - so you could say to a logical absurdity that people should be able to own nuclear weapons.
So should the 2nd amendment simply be amended to keep extreme weapons (tanks & nuclear warheads) out of reach? Maybe we could add weapon classifications such as "1-10" for civilian weapons & "M" for military grade weapons. I am just coming up with a potential solution to a problem that many people are arguing about constantly.
Seeing as this issue was so important that it was grafted as the 2nd Amendment, it is should be pretty important. Is it out of line with today's modernist views?
So do you believe that the 2nd Amendment is essentially still a legitimate reason for owning a weapon? Or do you believe that people should have the right for other (call it libertarian) reasons? Or do you want to see that people have less to no guns at all?
how about adding another question in you little biased poll?
I prefer a unlimited 2nd Amendment free from any government control.
This is especially true for democrats. However I have noticed that few people, essentially what people think of as "country folk" believe in the 2nd Amendment for the actual reason that is given in the document
- "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."
Even many people who do believe that people should have the right to own guns will do so for libertarian reasons; however not out of fear of government takeover. Many people think that the wording doesn't allow for any restrictions - so you could say to a logical absurdity that people should be able to own nuclear weapons.
So should the 2nd amendment simply be amended to keep extreme weapons (tanks & nuclear warheads) out of reach? Maybe we could add weapon classifications such as "1-10" for civilian weapons & "M" for military grade weapons. I am just coming up with a potential solution to a problem that many people are arguing about constantly.
Seeing as this issue was so important that it was grafted as the 2nd Amendment, it is should be pretty important. Is it out of line with today's modernist views?
So do you believe that the 2nd Amendment is essentially still a legitimate reason for owning a weapon? Or do you believe that people should have the right for other (call it libertarian) reasons? Or do you want to see that people have less to no guns at all?
Uh, functional tanks are legal to own. One sold at auction late last year.
In most cases the threat determines the weapons. Small pests require small guns. Big pests require bigger guns. Medium sized pests such as human assailants require medium size guns. The actual weapon choices should be made by the purchasers without any government restriction or regulation. Where those weapons are carried is also decided by the owner who should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed, anywhere they have a legal right to be.
The principal problem with the private ownership of nuclear weapons for self defense is they are big enough to destroy the defender as thoroughly as the assailant.
"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."
Does this mean that those who keep and maintain arms can be called up to act as a "well regulated militia" when deemed necessary?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
