Do you think this future gov't will continue to try to "alter" the 2nd amendment?

Question

Funny Lilly its both repubs AND democrats who seem to want this.........

Right to bear arms was not an alteration it was in the original "Bill of Rights".......

Hamr apparantly you havent been keeping track--for instance, the 14th amend was altered to accomodate big buisness as being regarded as an indivual, which is ridiculous. Many thought this would backfire on them, however, new laws (as passed by Bush Jr.) put a cap on settlements.

Answer 1

One of the best ways to control any group of people is to take away their ability to resist or defend their self.

Answer 2

Seeing as the amendment was an alteration to the constitution in the first place this in itself gives precedent for endless change of the amendment over time. Undoubtedly until the majority of maniacs are divested of their guns more and more control will be necessary. Most English colonies did better in this respect by sticking w. the Magna Carta that the US constitution is based on, but then slavery would not have been allowed for so much longer than the Magna Carta's interpreters deemed necessary and legal.
The constitution was poorly drafted and several delegates to the first constitutional convention refused to sign because it did not include a bill of rights. Bills of rights were typically parts of the constitutions of the several states of the day (and today), placed there to ensure that certain rights were recognized by the government. Most of the delegates did not feel such a bill was necessary but the constitution did more than amend the previous Articles of Confederation so the constitution required a bill of rights and 10 immediate amendments to it before it could even be acceptable to be passed.

Answer 3

"This" denotes something in the present. Are you referring to the present administration and congress? By "future gov't" are you referring to those persons to be elected in the future or a complete change in our system of government.

Amendments technically cannot be altered. It remains as is as part of the Constitution. It can be superseded by a subsequent amendment.

Are you asking if there will be more efforts by government officials to limit or enhance the right of the people to bear arms?

Answer 4

Yes!!!
Lennin, Marx, Stalin, and Hitler were the first to take away the right to own firearms.
They are the HEROES OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.

Democrats will NEVER Give Up taking away the Rights of the People.
Communism can never really take over until the Democrats GET THE GUNS.

The Goal of the Democrat Party is Socialism/Communism.

Answer 5

I would like to respond, but I have no idea what you are talking about..Talk about keeping track. New laws as passed by Bush? Third graders know the President does not pass laws. Totally invalidates any thing you have to say when you go this far off the track.

Answer 6

The consequences of the expanded ability to purchase and carry firearms will eventually come home to roost and reaction will bring back gun control.

Expanded availability will not result in a more peaceful and well-mannered society, or in increased public safety.

Answer 7

Sure why not but the 2nd amendment says nothing about ammo! How about if we just let you guys buy any guns you want but outlaw ammo?

Answer 8

If they are democrats yes they will. The first and the second amendment both need to go in order for them to get complete power.

Answer 9

I hope not, but I don't have faith in the intelligence of the American people.

Answer 10

it should stay were it is now,a shotgun or a handgun is perfectly legal.u don't need to own 50 caliber assault rifles or rpgs