They did a wonderful job! I only wish that we had a few politicians like them left.
2007-12-31 15:17:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mir 6
·
9⤊
2⤋
The second amendment was most likely a coverall for various situations, including the need to have an armed militia in case of invasion from a hostile entity. Look at it this way, when the constitution was written there were no supermarkets, there really was no organized law enforcement, nor was the military totally established. The wording of the 2nd Amendment was so that the citizens had a way to defend themselves, and also because hunting was needed in order to feed oneself. Yes now we have organized law enforcement, and a well trained militia, but the need to defend oneself, and feed your family is still a guaranteed right. Always remember when seconds count the police are minutes away.
2016-05-28 08:03:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by raguel 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
in the constitution it clearly states that the people have the right to keep and bare arms. no one is armed with howetzers. gun laws and regulations do not allow you to. i own many guns, semi autos, bolt actions, pumps, hand guns, muzzel loaders and i would never shoot any one unless they to had a gun and i felt threatened. its not the gun that kills people. we desing it, build it, load it, aim it and fire it, with out an opporator the gun is useless. people kill people. theyve been doing it long before guns were even imagined. if the government takes our rights to bare arms what else will they take away? freedom of speach? even if they do take guns away i will tell you right now they WILL NOT get mine
2007-12-31 16:31:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by n_m389 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Lets hope that the 2nd Amendment is not changed. I love how the one down below states how we now are protected by the police. What a joke. In the news lately there have been a few Police Officers that murdered their wives. One is awaiting trial and one is about to go down. Also, what about the Police Officer that killed those young kids? What a joke, for anyone to think they are safer with the Police force. So they don't need a gun. And then to have the nerve to say they are more dangerous in the hands of Citizens. It is not the person that kills. It is the gun that kills. Life is a risk and one never knows. I have a lot of guns, but I know better. Guns are a necessity to own. The ones that argue against having guns. Are usually the ones that meet a violent death. I am a proud NRA supporter!
2007-12-31 15:25:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sasha 5
·
5⤊
0⤋
We have spent the last 200 plus years trying to convince ourselves that the founding fathers made provisions for us to arm ourselves to the teeth. The militias that were provided for were to combat tyranny on the part of the central government and the right to bear arms was to arm those militias. There was no provision made for anyone to have a battery of howitzers in there barn or laws rockets in their step van. Pandora has been out of the box way too long to think reason could be achieved where guns are concerned. Does it occur to anyone that the five biggest arms dealers in the world are the five members of the UN security council?
2007-12-31 15:21:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Stephen C 4
·
1⤊
7⤋
i dont give a crap who wins,
i'm keepin MY guns!!!
2007-12-31 15:20:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Yes, I have them highlighted in the Federalist Papers. They understood basic human behaviour, unlike modern gun banners who think government can control us without tyranizing us.
2007-12-31 15:17:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by freedom_vs_slavery 3
·
6⤊
1⤋
Right on!
2007-12-31 15:14:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by fido 1
·
5⤊
2⤋
that sums it up.
2007-12-31 15:14:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
I'm confused. Ron Paul wrote the Constitution.
2007-12-31 15:14:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
9⤋
Yep!
2007-12-31 15:12:49
·
answer #11
·
answered by energeticthinker 5
·
5⤊
1⤋