who thinks the amendment giving us the right to have arms should be gotten rid of?

Question

because at the time when our founding fathers wrote the constitution, the world was a scary place, but now we have police officers that can handle that, plus, without weapons, we would have less crime or it would be easier to find bad guys.

arms as in guns but I like the i like my hands answer

Answer 1

The most powerful gun at the time the declaration of Independence was signed was a one shot mussel loader. I don't think this should apply to the tech-9, AK-47, hollow point bullets, cop killers, etc... Do you remember the movies about the cowboys and Indians? This is when the automatic weapons where developed. With the only purpose to kill as many Indians as possible with out stopping their horse. The US is the only country that kills more people than disease.

Answer 2

Ahhh, but the Constitution says the right to bare arms (mostly with the intent of protecting ones self, property and country), it does not say you can violate the law. Since The Constitution does not specify HOW to apply the right to bare arms in a responsible manner, you need to turn to federal, state and local laws to determine if the way you are acting is legal. "mounting an attack" as you phrased it, would be a definite illegal act, the Constitution could not protect you in any way at that point. The Right to bare arms was an attempt to help citizens (particularly i rural areas) protect them selves from raiders, bandits and thieves, since law enforcement at the time was mostly based on constables and had minimal coverage in far off rural lands. It also allowed for localized defense against Native American raiding parties since most military forces would not be able to respond in a timely manner. The 2nd amendment should NEVER be taken as Carte Blanche to take the law in to ones own hands... By doing so you are in violation of the spirit of the amendment and would be giving the anti-gun lobby perfect fodder for making more laws against law abiding gun owners.

Answer 3

It also guarantees that the government has to respect the people as the people are also armed.
No, the police can only protect you once you report the crime, they are not everywhere.
You obviously don't live in a place with a high crime rate. LOL
Agree with Answerer Thomas C

Answer 4

Possession of guns should only be for valid reasons such as hunting, police work and military. The constitution provides that freedom must be respected but it should be regulated like possesion of guns must be controlled.

Answer 5

Sorry, we can't get rid of it.

However, if you were to LITERALLY interpret it, it guarantees people to have firearms for reasons of having an armed militia.

If you feel that your state is being threatened, you and your neighbors have the right to take up arms and protect your homestead (although we have military for such things).

The 2nd amendment doesn't give EVERYBODY UNLIMITED rights to weapons, it's just interpreted that way.

Answer 6

That's just not practical because too many really bad ppl own weapons. It would leave the general population too vulnerable.

Answer 7

no .

citizens are allowed to have arms in case the government
becomes repressive.

that they could have the ability to overthrow it.

the founding fathers were light years ahead of us!

Answer 8

If democracy doesn't suit you, try China for awhile. Then ask about taking people's freedom's away.

Answer 9

not me i need my arms!!! what would i use to carry my hands? how would i button my shirt? what if i was in a parade, how would i wave?