Should the 2nd amendment be defined, or changed?

Question

The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms.

I'm cool with that. BUT shouldn't it be defined?

Do American citizens needs plutonuim, nukes, automatic weapons, depeleted uranuim gun shells, or grenades? Of course not!

Our forefathers would have never forseen the types of weapons that would be created.

timothy, do you think that the framers wanted people to own nukes?

Of course not.

Answer 1

Definitely should be defined. Not only that, but this amendment was added in a time when people needed guns to defend from anything from soldiers to the dangers of the forest.

Sorry, but no one needs a gun in thiis country. Sounds like an excuse for trouble.

Answer 2

Actually I am amazed at how much foresight the founding fathers had. Surely they knew that weapons would be improved or made worse depending on which end of the weapon you are facing.

With that in mind I agree with you on the concept of defining the Second Amendment, even though I think we are far apart on the political spectrum.

I agree with liberal attorney Allen Dershowitz who does not like guns. If we change gun laws we should do it the right way, we should amend the constitution in the prescribed manner. I do not believe that the definition should come from a justices personal opinion, the forefathers totally saw that coming.

I would like to have a ruling once and for all on the issue. I of course would not want anyone to have nuclear devices or depleted uranium but I believe all small arms should be available as they are now in most states.

Yes, you can own a automatic weapon, I have one. You must go through a background check similar to a concealed carry permit. It is not for the weak of checkbook, they can only sell weapons that were made prior to 1986, and each year some of them get destroyed. I paid $3000 for mine, I believe the cost is now $8000. There has been no instance of anyone killed using a legal machine gun.

International law does NOT trump the US constitution!!!!!

Answer 3

Citizens need and should posses the weapons necessary to overthrow the United States Government. If and when the Government starts changing or breaking the Laws of the Constitution.

We need more weapons than the Army More Nukes More Jet fighters.

We also need tools like the Internet to organize a well regulated Militia to stop corrupt Government Officials.

Answer 4

The second amendment is defined, though only half of it is ever quoted. The first part is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

So the constitution only gave you the right to carry (bear) arms, when you do so as part of a militia that has been sanctioned (regulated) by law. This would apply to a voluntary army, but not to every citizen who happens to want to carry a gun.

Fortunately (for you) activist judges in the Supreme Court have warped and extended the definition to the point where Saturday Night Specials are the accessory to wear on every street corner.

Answer 5

It is adequately defined. It states that the right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.

To make a comparison between legal ownership of firearms and "nukes" isnt very logical.
The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

Answer 6

By "right to bear arms", the founders meant "personal armaments", not military weaponry. No "militia" should have access to the types of weapons you are talking about, and if they did, they would be violating the law. Nuclear (or nu-cu-lar for you Republicans) weapons are covered by international law, which, in most cases, trumps the Constitution.

“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” - Thomas Jefferson

The 2nd Amendment was put in place for self-defense, either against those who want to harm you or the government. If you need any of the aforementioned weapons to defend yourself, maybe you should consider moving to the "safe" part of town.

Answer 7

I agree the 2nd amendment is pretty ambiguous, and there are many laws on the books that violate its literal meaning by not allowing automatic weapons on depleted uranium shells.
But to get a suprems court judge to read the constitution the way its written, the judiciary were the first to violate it! The constitutioncalls for a common law court system- so how did we end up with a maritime admiralty system?

Answer 8

The right to bare arms does not mention any weapons type.

However it is a aggressive and life threatening stance against corrupt Government.

In 1776 a Flint lock rifle was a formidable weapon. A man could secure his chattel and ideals with a couple of Lancaster rifles and a good woman to reload.

What would it take in today's world to posture oneself in the same way?

Go big Red Go

Answer 9

noone needs nukes period. the native americans foresaw the power of the sun being the destroyer of humankind. they had visions that humans harnessed this power.....and did not know how to use it. noone needs these weapons regardless of these visions anyway. nukes and bombs are not true power. the legacy of mahatma gandhi was a true power. hate to say that cause it makes me sound like a hippie or a liberal, of which i am neither. i'm just fed up with dems and republicans and the ignorance that has plagued our society. our forefathers would bend us over and get midwestern on our asses. (no offense---it's just a phrase)

Answer 10

You need to read the amendment.

The 2nd amendment states that you have the right to bear arms, but in a militia. as stated below:

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

Not exactly what everyone thinks is it?