Second Amendmant: "The right to bear arms". Do we still need it in the USA?

Answer 1

The 2nd Amendment is not negotiable!...

Answer 2

What do you mean "Do we need it..."? I need all my rights, I don't know about you. No matter how I may feel concerning possessing weapons, I feel it is a central tenant of the agreement of and with "The People". Something which can never be revoked, to do so would be to further destabilize the balance of power in this nation. "The People" are the ultimate check on all of the branches of Government. "The People" are supposed to police, the practices of Government.

I must note, however, that fire-arms are not required for this task. Also, to relegate "arms" to only fire-arms is doing the language of the constitution injustice. I do not support employing arms as a means of accomplishing anything other than immediate self defense and sport. I certainly do not support the irresponsible use of "arms" to solve petty disputes. "Arms" are supposed to be the guardians of the last line of civilization. Peaceful, even at times spirited discourse is always preferred to killing anyone. How can anyone claim to be civilized, when one can not restrain from killing?

To many times uncivilized people go for "arms" as a prime means of attaining goals. These people occasionally gain power within the government, as history has shown. So as long as government is susceptible to infiltration by the uncivilized, "The People" must be able to reliably check tyrannic behavior. This is the fail safe built into the constitution, and should remain.

I sincerely hope it will always serve to add a feeling of loathsome terror to any government which seeks to stop being subject to "The People". Any enemy foreign or domestic, should fear God first and The People secondly.
Not because of "arms", but if the government is not acting as it should "The People" will purge the entire lot of bureaucrats which were misbehaving, peacefully at the ballot box. The bureaucrats should be terrified of loosing their jobs.

Answer 3

Your question carried to conclusion would entail the amendment of the US Constitution by either of the complicated processes available. Any attempt would be fruitless, and overwhelmingly politicians and elected officials would run away from that position as fast as possible. The evidence? The national Democratic Party has removed gun ownership (its restriction that is) from its agenda, platform, or campaigns.

Hence the stealth tactic is used as a dodge to avoid the Constitutional issue: some regulatory scheme to control the ownership or transport of weapons in the guise of public safety, protection of children, etc.

The US Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case concerning the District of Columbia's law to restrict gun ownership, the first time the modern Court has accepted the controversy. The likely result might be the affirmation that the Second means just what it says: an individual has a protected right to own firearms, period, end of case, end of "Brady bills" and their ilk.

Answer 4

while im hesistant to support the right to bear arms because of gun-nuts out there (why DO you need to have armor piercing bullets? are deers that smart now?), i have come to respect its importance to the republic, and in my opinion, is the most important amendment in the constitution (even moreso than the 1st or 4th).

the reason is that the founding fathers had John Lockes words in mind when laying the republics foundation. when the government no longer serves the people, it is there duty to depose the government and put a representative one in place. the founders subtly and cleverly placed a "doomsday button" in the consitution. should the government ever turn against the people, they will have the means to protect themselves and begin a new revolution to create a better government.

i know that sounds militant and overly zealous and revolutionary. and i certainly dont feel we are anywhere near the point at which the 2nd amendment must be excercised in this fashion. i just admire the fact that the founders had the foresight to realize that the one thing more important than the republic itself, was freedom. and the 2nd amendment allows people to maintain the means of protecting this freedom, even at the expense of the government.

Answer 5

Of course it is needed.

By your question, you like in a large city on either the east or west coast, and you probably live in a Democratic household, am I a right?

The right to bear arms is something that America was founded on, and you will find that most of America, once you are out of California and New York, hold strongly to.

Answer 6

I am always amused by anti-firearms people.Whether it is by their silly antics or pedantics,these guys are funny.We citizens that are armed and respectful of law and order must remain vigilant though and keep up with these people and their doings in state and national capitols...they're persistent.
Naive...but persistent and they love it when whackos shoot up your town...that is the icing on the proverbial cake for them.

Answer 7

Yes, I believe we do:
If you trust the government to protect you -
If you KNOW that you will never be robbed at gunpoint -
If you can count on the Police to be there for you before the event -
You may disagree.

Answer 8

Aw, let's do away with the 2nd Amendment...then only the thugs, crooks, criminals, military and law enforcement will have them.

Would you want to live in a country like that?

I think not!

Answer 9

Yes, we need to have a militia that has the right to bear arms.

The amendment was never meant to apply to individuals, and if the courts can't get it straight, then we need to change the wording.

Answer 10

No. Let's have country where all of the guns are owned by Blackwater!

Answer 11

Uhhhh, are you serious?? We need it more than ever before. I live in Vegas and I am about to purchase my first one after the new year. Better to be safe than sorry.