I think it is one of the best Amendments.
2007-01-25 12:26:11 · 10 answers · asked by 97979546546546546546546546546546 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It should not be changed.
It is no coincidence that it is second only to free speech.
Here the actual text for the person above that tried to put the spin on.
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.
You have to love Democrats . The believe in the constitutional right to an abortion. That is not there. But think we have no right to bear arms and That is in there.
2007-01-25 12:43:41 · answer #1 · answered by Luchador 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
If it was important enough to be put in the Bill of Rights, it must stay and be protected, just as all of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. If you don't like the 2nd Amend. then don't buy a gun, but don't try to infringe on my right to protect me.
As an American citizen, you agree to a contract with the government, and one part of the contract is that the government will provide you with protection. When was the last time the police showed up, esp. in rural areas as your house was being broken in to. If the government cannot keep its part of the contract, YOU must take over where they failed. Are you going to protect yourself with your wit and charm? Your right to free speach?
It never ceases to amaze me how people would never give up their right to bit** about the 2nd Amend., secured by the 1st Amend., but never give credit to the 2nd. Amend. for protecting that right.
Think about it. What is the first thing a dictitorial government does when it takes over a country? That's right it takes away the right of the citizens to protect themselves by collecting the guns. If that were to happen here, how long after do you think your right to free speech will be lost?
2007-01-25 13:43:01 · answer #2 · answered by rmoss9686 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Newsflash:
It's part of the Bill of Rights; it CAN'T be changed.
And the First Amendment is WAY more important than the Second Amendment. Remember, if there was no First, you couldn't say how much you like the Second.
2007-01-25 12:42:21 · answer #3 · answered by amg503 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it needs to be altered. citizens do not need semi or fully automtic weapons.
hands guns and rifles are fine- as long as they are liscened, the person has had a backround check, the owner is of legal age, and trigger locks are readily avalible for those who want them.
2007-01-25 13:13:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No government interference with the right of law abiding Americans to own guns. No machine guns, no bazookas, no armor piercing ammo, no dum-dum bullets, no teflon coated cop killing bullets, no military weaponry,however. Handguns, rifles and shotguns are fine.
2007-01-25 12:53:06 · answer #5 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A gun ban would only take guns away from law abiding citizens.
The criminals would still have them.
2007-01-25 12:41:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anthony A 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes yes all the crazies need their guns, God forbid, we act like a civilized country.
2007-01-25 12:38:14 · answer #7 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I like it and people should be able to carry a gun on them, for obvious self-defense purposes.
2007-01-25 12:32:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
if only the NRA zealots would actually read what is says...i.e. "in order to form a militia"
2007-01-25 12:37:35 · answer #9 · answered by cwdc 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
your correct.
2007-01-25 12:57:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋