The 2nd Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -- What are your views on guns?

Answer 1

I read and understand the English language and the phrase "....shall not be infringed." is very clear to me and that makes most gun laws in this country today are contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

The primary source of our government....or more importantly LACK of government...is the Constitution.

Not the President, not Congress, not the Supreme Court, not the media and not popular opinion. We are a Republic with a rock-solid Constitution, we are NOT a democracy.


My view is that the Second Amendment was given such prominence in our Constitution because the Founders realized that the freedom of self-determination from oppressive tyrants was won by a few determined men with guns and more importantly that the time when such men would need to resort to guns once again to keep the country free would come eventually.



From http://patriotpost.us/

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic..." --U.S. Justice Joseph Story

Gun-free nations are safer -- at least for folks like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot and Saddam, all of whom disarmed their detractors before slaughtering them by the tens of millions.

History records the consequences of disarming people, both in terms of protection, in their person and property, from tyrannical governments and from criminals. Regarding the latter, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Thomas Jefferson understood that maxim. In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Answer 2

This is a sound and still very necessary part of the U.S, Constitution! I am the owner of several guns.Most every person that I know feels just like I do. Typically it isnt the responsible gun owner that cherishes the first gun he ever owned, it isnt the person that would never part with his Dad's shotgun, it isnt the person like me that has both of these qualities, that goes on a shooting spree or otherwise commits violent gun crimes. But these are the people that suffer the most when a new Gun law is introduced. A Felon cannot get a gun by any legal means. A person that is not sane cannot legally buy a gun. If a person wants a gun. No matter how many laws are in place to keep them from getting it, they will still get it. Taking guns away from everyone because of this, is like taking away cars because of drunk drivers! Please do not punish the good because of the bad. If everyone that legally could carry a gun, carried a gun. The guys that had to get one by stealing it, would be out of luck.

Answer 3

When the 2ND Amendment was written there was probably a very different view and reality about gun ownership. It is not difficult to imagine that a gun was a household necessity. Used not only for protection-but also as a tool to hunt with.

Gun ownership is a major responsibility. Having a healthy respect for what happens when a weapon is pulled-is a must. Because once the trigger is pulled the bullet is going to have some manner of impact.

I have mixed feelings about this subject. On one hand, I am pro the right to keep and bear arms. Having grown up in a house where guns were kept. My parents did the educating about what to do and more importantly what not to do with a gun. Most of the members of my immediate family know how to use a weapon. We were taught and properly supervised on gun usage.

I have also wept tears because one of my young students killed himself with a pistol that he discovered at home. While it would be easy to blame the grown ups around him for not being responsible enough to keep the gun locked up-that will not change what happened. He was 6 years old.

There needs to be some serious emphasis put on gun ownership. Especially if the weapon is going to be kept inside of a home with children. I believe that there needs to be an educational program that is required prior to a finalized purchase of a weapon.

Answer 4

I support gun rights for the most part. I also want to say that some states are overly restrictive regarding restrictions for mental illnesses. Apparently in Hawaii, if you even have an anxiety disorder you can't have a gun. I have bipolar disorder, and in some states, I can't own a gun because supposedly I am a danger to others, even though I spend my days sewing doll clothes for little girls and baking apple pies and have never hurt anyone. It isn't women running off killing masses of people, ever. In fact, most of these shooting sprees are because of BULLYING or MALADJUSTMENT and not a mental illness itself.

I also want to add that people are being stupid when they go on about the liberal dems wanting to get rid of guns, etc. Well, I'M a liberal dem, and I don't want that. And probably none of the folks insulting the Brady folks had their 12 year old killed by a stray bullet in the inner city, etc. You can't always defend yourself with a gun, you have to realize in time that you are in danger, and frankly, when I'm shopping at a convenience store, I do not expect that at any moment a guy with a mask and gun is going to come in there and rob me and the cashier and maybe kill us. That's not to say I think guns have no place in self defense, I'm saying they won't solve as many problems as people simplistically think they will. And my ex husband almost shot me by accident because I came home late from school.

A lot of those Brady folks had a loved one killed by inner city gun violence. Don't demonize them, just disagree.

Answer 5

GUN CONTROL means being able to hit your target.

We need MORE 1911s and NO more 911s.

Liberals want to take guns away so we can not defend ourselves against an oppressive government. In other words, they know that if there is a rebellion against the USA government, it will be a rebellion against them.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. If you can not understand that statement, then you are a Liberal.

All guns can be used to assault someone. Based upon that fact the liberals consider all guns as assault weapons and they want to ban them all.

Hillary wants to take away your guns but has no problem with her Secret Service escorts carrying machine pistols.

Guns do not kill, bullets do. Based upon that logic, Liberals are now trying to ban bullets or tax them out of existence.

48 states have a concealed weapons permit system. Only two more to bring into the light.

Liberals do not like people to use guns for self defense. It makes it hard to figure out what happened when an armed victim takes out the bad guy. They much more prefer a nice straight forward murder of an unarmed victim as figuring that out is a no-brainer and they are good at that kind of problem.

Answer 6

The history of Americans owning and being well trained with guns is one of the biggest obstacles the libs have in total take over....that is why almost every gun control bill ever introduced in congress is authored by a dem...I'm providing a link that will show that 39% of American households admit they have a gun...thats just the ones who admit to it....that probably works out to about 117million man army standing in their way ..so look for more attacks on our constitutional right to own a gun....I think we should designate one day and call it Second Amendment appreciation day...and on that day everyone who owns a gun and loves the second amendment could have gun safety class's...target practice...gun training.....the sight of millions out enjoying the day with their weapons would just give the libs in congress...and all libs chills.....

Answer 7

Because you're not in the militia, and what you're describing does not sound "well regulated". The well regulated militia, at the time the Constitution was drafted, referred to the Minutemen. The armed townships that fought the guerrilla war to fight off the British. Now that the USA has the world's biggest military, the "militia" is obsolete. Of course, the Constitution is open to interpretation. Liberals think the "well regulated militia" is our military. Conservatives think it means they should be forming their own little militias to fight against the US army, which is ridiculous I think, but you have a right to your opinion, as we do ours.

Answer 8

Look at the statistics for gun related deaths in the US. You'll see the majority belong to suicide and drugees looking for a fix, take away the guns and you still have the problem. Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't fix society.

Answer 9

I think that guns don't kill people, people do. Guns are called 'the great equiliser' because, basically, as long as you can pull a trigger, you can fire one. At least that means that most people can defend themselves from an attacker, robbery or other crime. If guns were no longer in existence, there would be hundreds of others to take their place, and people would still find a way to kill.

Answer 10

Keep 'em to put down any Tyrannt or hostile Foreign forces! Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic! That Is what it says. Only Emotional Communists want to take them away....until they can have their way with you. Police ALWAYS arrive after the fact and the Victims are Always Unarmed....
"Not From My Cold Dead Hands..." Charleston Heston