Political Discussions
Should the Right to Bear Arms br preserved or abolished?
Posted by NT77 • 9/01/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: amendment, constitution, freedom, guns, rights, usa
What's your opinion on America's Second Amendment to the Constitution (The Right to Bear Arms)?
Do you believe that an armed populace is necessary to guarantee the security of a free state? Would encroachment on the right to bear arms be a step towards tyranny? Do you believe that without the second amendment, there is nothing to prevent the loss of all our rights.
Or do you believe that this amendment is archaic and obsolete? Do you feel that with the modern weapons and tactics that our military has, armed citizens could no longer guard against an attack, either external or internal? Do you feel that the Right to Bear Arms only increases the chances of homicides in moments of passion?
I'd welcome opinions from all countries, USA and abroad.
User Comments
-
"Do you believe that without the second amendment, there is nothing to prevent the loss of all our rights."
no, the 9th amendment should protect gun ownership as well
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --9th Amendment-
If the second amendment were taken away why not the 9th too? -
then again, the 9th amendment should protect the right to grow and smoke weed...
-
man i feel hungry all of a sudden...
-
-
The second amendment should remain
-
(1) It's a matter of constitutional law, not public opinion. The Supreme Court made quite clear last summer what the 2nd amendment now means.
(2) Constitutional amendments are possible, but difficult. I don't see enough support for such a move, and this country has bigger political battles to fight anyway.
(3) The first two points render this OP's question as framed in the thread title moot in my eyes.
(4) As for the more detailed questions, I never bought the notion that guns make people safer in this land. But my opinion on that score is irrelevant.
(5) Any discussion that is not just purely philosophical would focus on what kinds of gun regulation is legitimate and desirable, for last summer's decision did permit states to regulate, just not to the extent that DC had done.-
I should add that this question also ties in with some of the right-wing craziness we've experienced or read about this year: the militia movement and gun-toting visitors to presidential events, one of them carrying a sign about watering the tree of liberty.
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/town-hall-war
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/militia-movement
Of course, not all gun owners fall into this category, but events of the past few months suggest that questions about guns also have to be seen in this context. -
[duplicate]
-
[triplicate]
-
-
I think the 2nd Amendment should be discarded, and that all weapons should be given to the government in Washington, where Obama will melt the weapons himself and use the material to create the largest statue ever of Karl Marx.
Is that the answer you were hoping for?-
"Is that the answer you were hoping for?
I was hoping for intelligent, well thought-out answers . . . . -
Failed again!
Well, I'll give it another shot.
One of the founding principals of this country (maybe the most important one, as I understand it to be) is the right to live free from the possibility of a tyrannical government. Mistrust of government is one of the founding principal of this country, which is something many anti-gun-rights people don't understand. It's not about the right to hunt and kill Bambi.
Now, personally, if it came to that, I'd take the side of a tyrannical government any day against the NRA nutcases, but that doesn't mean the Constitution is not on their side.
I think some of the ideas Obama mentioned in the past--like limiting gun purchases to once a month, which would reduce illegal gun trafficking without encroaching on the 2nd Amendment--make sense, but as long as the country believes in its founding principal, there should be a right to bear arms.
-
-
I tried to make the question unbiased by using arguments that I found from both sides on the internet. While some arguments for preserving this right make some sense, many I find quite weak. For example, one that I found was that Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler banned all guns, implying that only personal gun ownership keeps America from becoming a totalitarian state such as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
Personally I think the wording of the Second Amendment makes it obvious that it's from another era, and I believe it should be changed. While I'm not against banning guns entirely, I feel that the type of weapon should be regulated, as well as where the weapons can be carried should be restricted. I really see no need in owning any guns other than those for hunting or handguns for the protection of the home (and I would not be against a ban on the latter). I feel that any handguns which an individual owns should be kept in the home, except to transport them for use at clubs or ranges.
I understand that keeping handguns off the streets would not make violent crime go away. I lived in Britain where handguns were banned, yet there was nonetheless a lot of violent crime, mainly with knives. But even though I didn't feel completely safe on the streets, I still felt safer there than I do here. At least in Britain I had a better chance of defending myself, as my attacker would have to get up close to me. The chance of being killed by an unseen attacker was practically nonexistant. -
I believe it should be kept. However - I also believe that responsible gun ownership and use should be paramount in keeping said amendment. In other words, if people don't stop acting like idiots with their guns, more and more laws will infringe on the 2nd amendment out of fear from the general populace that the (well armed) people are scarier than the well-armed government.
-
wp
-
-
We should not lose our rights to keep and bear arms.
-
Yes. It should be kept. People have the right to protect themselves if they so choose, and there is no real evidence that, except in one or two very narrow circumstances, gun laws have ever actually reduced crime rates, as every gain in the hardship of attaining firearms is made up for by increased benefit and safety (being the only guy with a gun) of owning one. Further, to deny people such a central right as the right to armament is to begin the path of coddling a weak and irresponsible populace that forsakes more and more of their God-given rights for protections that they neither deserve nor are practical. See, back when everybody owned a gun in the 50's, children grew up learning how to use them properly. Today, they don't know how to use them properly so as soon as they get one in their hand they know not what to do with it.
I agree with Anok though that more responsibility needs to be instilled, and believe that just like we educate our children in responsible sexuality, we should also have a Gun Ed course to train them in the proper and responsible use of weapons and the horrifying consequences of error. Such classes have been shown time and time again to reduce the level of the ignorance and irresponsibility problems (like STD, teen pregnancy, and, in the case of drivers ed, teenage driving fatalities) associated with their subject.-
I also think we should have the right to keep and garage Ferraris. But that's just me.
-
should be a requirement
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
