Do you believe the 2nd amendment is still relevant?

And state your reasoning.

  • Yes, I do believe that it's relevant today
    54% (7)90% (27)79% (34)Vote
  • No, I do not believe that it is relevant today
    46% (6)10% (3)21% (9)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Updates:
Here it is if you feel the need to analyze it.
"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."

0|0
2|19

Most Helpful Guy

  • More so now, than in most times in our history!! It is because there are so many calling for people to surrender that BASIC right, that it is so important to understand it, and know WHY it is so IMPORTANT!! The police have no mandate to protect the individual citizen, so where does that leave you, if someone breaks into your house, and tries to steal, or rape your wife or daughter? The police are there, a half hour later, to put up that yellow tape, and make reports, and gather evidence for a trial that might not ever happen. What about the mass-shootings, in "GUN-FREE ZONES"? What if a few were there, armed? Would the 'bad guy' think twice, if he knew that maybe 5% of the people in the theater, or just 5% of the teachers, in the school might be trained, armed, and ready to stop him? No gun, EVER has loaded itself and shot someone!! It is the CRAZY FCKS that do terrible things, WITH Guns, that make the news! Nobody runs stories about all the times someone presented a gun to an assailant, or a burglar, and they ran away!!

    0|4
    1|0
    • What about the part about the well regulated Militia?

    • Show All
    • Understanding the history of the time, the FOUNDERS believed, as they said, that a "Well regulated militia, being necessary for a free state," YES, but the COMMA, is the DEFINING POINT, and it IS UNIQUE!!! That comma, distinguishes the Militia (National Guard?) from the INDIVIDUAL!!! That is why the Supreme Court finally ruled that the Second Amendment DOES, SPECIFICALLY, mean that while there are militias, the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, to keep and bear arms, is and INDIVIDUAL right, and a 'collective right' for militias.

    • @NearlyNapping The 'People' ARE DEFINITELY NOT the Militia!! THAT IS WHY THERE IS A COMMA!! THE Founders used that comma, to distinguish between the two!! They knew 'militias' for the Revolutionary War, and for state protection, but they also BELIEVED (Read the Federalist Papers) that the INDIVIDUAL, MUST, ABSOLUTELY, HAVE THE RIGHT FOR ARMS, if not just for hunting and protection on the frontier, but ALSO TO DEFEND AGAINST TYRANNY!! They just fought a war, for freedom from oppressive government!! They knew it could happen again, so they made that RIGHT, the RIGHT TO BE ARMED, the second, with only the right to call out your leaders, and say they are completely full of sht!!! Some argue that it was just the times, then, and they had muzzle-loaders, but ask the Jews in Poland, or Germany in the 1930's, about weapons to defend themselves, or the Russians, under Stalin, or dozens of others!! Unarmed people are 'sheep' to despots and criminals! Police arrive in time to mark the bodies. . .

Most Helpful Girl

  • It should stay the way it is. If you "re-word" one amendment what stopping the government from "re-wording" another? Yes it is still relevant to today. Because the last time I checked, The Constitution had no expiration date.

    0|1
    0|0

What Guys Said 18

  • So back when that was written, you could feasible defend yourself and neighbors form militia and the US army lol How are you going to use your hunting rifles to defend against drones or tanks?

    I really like Bernie's gun views. Rural and urban areas should have separate standards. the people who advocate for gun rights- are almost entirely rural and really do need it to defend themselves as many of these areas will take a long time for police to show up to- you really are on your own.

    I have nothing wrong with a hunting rifle or shotgun... I do not like pistols, automatics and personal carry permits however.

    That is just my views on it though. too much big money to bring down the gun industry... I am also heavily influence having lived in Britain for a year and they ONE police person shot the entire time I was there and it was a massive nation wide thing. I felt safer actually when the police and people did not have guns. sure, some gang members likely had some, but I never once heard a gun shot there and the city I live in in the US, there are shootings weekly- which is actually good by nationwide standards.

    0|0
    0|0
    • "How are you going to use your hunting rifles to defend against drones or tanks? "

      There is a huge US military. But it's a modern military heavily built to fight other modern militaries. Stealth fighters and Air Craft carriers are pretty worthless against scattered people in the hills, when you don't even know who the enemy is. They are not made for that.

      How do you think a small number of insurgents in Iraq gave the US military so much trouble for a decade? How much more trouble would a vastly larger number of people be able to give the US military? No matter how well equipped, a military patrol entering the hills in Appalachia would be suicide.

  • Tyranny in government is not a thing of the past. So the right to have firearms remains vital to a free people.
    In WW2 the Japanese were deterred from a mainland invasion of the USA because "there would be a gun waiting behind every blade of grass" according to one Japanese general.

    0|2
    0|0
    • Do you believe it should be reworded in any way?

    • Show All
    • Much respect for tracking down that information. The substance of the quote is accurate, frankly, regardless of who said it.

    • @detlef I think this quote was probably accurate way in the past. The time around the United States was still young and small arms were the primary weapon for most armies. During such a time... yes if every citizen of the country owned a rifle or a gun... then it would be very difficult for any invading arming to conquer as the entire population of the country would act like an army.

      also np @RasmusAiken

  • Yes, for couple different reasons.
    1. The idea for an armed populace was for as much its own protection against itself. It meant that the government could never enforce military control and dominance without having to first face off against an armed citizenry. While this seems very far fetched today the concept of the freedom still remains strong.
    2. The biggest reason is because its the second amendment in our Bill of Rights. The debate of whether its relevant is actually irrelevant. Because it is actually is the basis for American freedom. If someone was to start with the second or third amendments and say "in todays age, these are necessary" many people wouldn't care too much, or even support it. Many people want full out gun control. But if they can disregard one amendment they can disregard all amendments. And without an armed citizenry to deal with, it wouldn't be hard to eliminate the first, fourth, etc.

    Of course its generally the concept more than the practice thankfully. No one is going to say that a few militias are going to defeat the greatest military in the world, but its the idea the American citizens have the rights to freedom and the right and the ability to defend that freedom for anyone foreign or domestic.

    Also, if we were to be invaded, whoever they were would be dealing with millions of armed insurgents which goes in part with the militia part of the amendment.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Absolutely relevant. If you take all power away from private citizens what is to stop the government from becoming tyrannical?

    0|2
    0|0
    • Is the second amendment an individual or collective right?

    • Show All
    • No offense intended, but I think that you are 'MOSTLY' correct, about the Second, and I COMPLETELY, AND TOTALLY DEFEND THAT, and the FIRST, above all the others.
      However, the Second does not intend to imply that groups of civilians should, or have a Constitutional right to form their own Militias, because of the 'well regulated' clause. In the era of the Founders, the individual colonies created militias, to defend themselves from aggression, mostly natives, at the time. The most important part of the SECOND, comes after the comma, the only one, of it's kind, in all of those documents!! They wrote it that way to distinguish the 'MILITIA', a colony/state regulated military unit, from the INDIVIDUAL, and THAT INDIVIDUAL, HAS THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE MILITIA!!! That is the MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION!!! THE SECOND GRANTS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and the Supreme Court finally upheld that interpretation!!

    • @SomeGuy37 You make a good point. I guess I had not looked at it quite that much. I think we can all agree that one function of the bill of rights and especially the first two amendments is to help prevent a tyrannical government. The fact that people keep attacking them really pisses me off.

  • A lot of people with guns, does not constitute a well regulated militia, and does not benefit the security of a free state (quite the opposite). The national guard is a well regulated militia, and it even provides the guns - it's no longer the responsibility of the militiaman to provide his own musket and bayonet.

    Anyway, all this talk of the 2nd amendment is really just a smokescreen. If any part of the constitution proves detrimental to the country and its citizens, it can and should be amended.

    0|0
    0|0
  • If it is irrelevant, why does it frighten so many? Since it frightens so many, it must be relevant.

    0|2
    0|0
    • What about it frightens so many?

    • I am not one of those who is frightened, so I cannot speak for them. However, I believe the truth is that they are frightened by the prospect of the power retained by the people.

  • Although I completely understand why the law was made... I do feel we are better without guns in most places in the United States today. If anything, having a lot of guns around has been troublesome rather than helpful. Ask yourself this simple question; how many times since the United States was created did the people have had to rise and take up arms to defend the country from its own government. Discounting the civil war which was two governments going at each other... we have had none. How many deaths have occurred because of the prevalence of guns? Quite a bit!

    0|1
    0|0
    • How many times has a person, having a gun, stopped a robbery, a rape, or assault? There are few statistics because NOBODY calls 9-1-1 and says "Don't send any cops, I stopped a robbery at the grocery store because I have a concealed carry weapon, and the D-bag robber ran away!!" Sadly, we only see the ones that went bad, sensationalized by our media that just LOVES to show DRAMA, and how guns are the problem!! It isn't the Criminal, the CRAZY FCK, that commits the crime, somehow it is the gun's fault!! Don't be so ignorant as to believe that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce crime in any way!! Really? What are you thinking? Criminals and terrorists don't follow laws, and if everyone BUT THEM is disarmed, what do you think will happen? The Police can't protect you, they just get there in time to put up the yellow tape, and draw chalk lines around the bodies!! Get some sense, man!! It isn't about defending against the government, it's about being safe!!

    • @SomeGuy37

      Yea... I don't feel safe with morons running around with guns who think they are G. I. Joe. I rather have professionals who have professional training work the situation. Not too long ago there was this shooting at a movie theater. G. I Jose gets up... sees the guy with the gun and shoots him. Turns out the guy he shot had just shot the actual shooter himself. Luckily this was all what happened that day. People were very confused who the real shooter was... if we had more people with guns all the G. I Joes would have shot each other.

  • I don't have any guns, and i'm not really into that kinda stuff, but i don't like the idea that only the govt. or the police can be armed. I don't trust either of those groups, so I think it is important that there is still at least the threat of armed resistance from the populace should uncle sam or the cops get too far out of line. Just my opinion.

    0|0
    0|0
  • "How can you say that more guns will make us safer"?

    Extract from presidant Obamas speech on the Oregon shootings.

    You guys baffle me, how can more guns equal less killings. Ban the damn things allready, we hardly EVER have this type of thing in Britain

    0|0
    0|0
    • "how can more guns equal less killings."

      Because guns prevent and stop crimes in greater numbers than are used to commit crimes. More guns will certainly result in crimes being committed which would otherwise not have been committed. This logic is valid.

      But more guns also results in crimes being prevented and stopped, which would otherwise not have been stopped. So it's the net effect that's of real concern. The answer is that there is a net decrease in crime.

    • Show All
    • Obama is an idiot!!! I'm glad that I can say how totally full of sht I think he is, even SUGGESTING that banning civilian-owned weapons will reduce crime!! Even if it was possible to suddenly remove all the legally owned weapons, for law-abiding citizens, crime would increase, because only the criminals, that DON'T ABIDE BY THE LAW will have guns!! We would become a nation of sheep, being preyed upon by criminal wolves!! What rapist is going to take the chance, if the woman he targets had a high probability of carrying a gun! Criminals prey on the weak, the unarmed, the defenseless, oh, but so do dictators, and despots!! Stop believing the stupid media hype that 'guns are the problem'!! CRAZY FCKS, and CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM, and banning guns from law-abiding citizens will only make the problem worse!!

    • Yeah, ok, they said that about Norway, and Switzerland, yet there were mass shootings there, in the last few years!! Their laws didn't stop it, but they are unarmed, so how could it happen? CRAZY FCKS and Criminal-type people, terrorists, DON'T FOLLOW LAWS!! IF you disarm the people, and keep them from protecting themselves, it is like opening the chicken coop to the fox!! The argument that mass killings 'only happen in America' is just media BULLSHIT, and SHAME ON THEM for sensationalizing their pain, to press their agenda!! CRAZY FCKS will ALWAYS find a way to get weapons, no matter what law you make!! THEY LAUGH AT THE LAW!! Only an armed nation, making it MUCH MORE RISKY for the criminal, knowing he might be confronted by a dozen armed citizens, is probably the best deterrent to their crazy kind of mass-murder!!

  • Yes, it allows citizens to defend themselves as well as be a voice for change in government.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Yes! Absolutely!

    The police is part of the government, and there's more than enough evidence of their Tyranny. Black people needs to start shooting back.

    0|0
    0|0
  • yes and even more so today then back then. if the criminals keep getting better guns shouldn't we be aloud to defend our selves?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yeah, the United States of America was founded by people with guns fighting against oppressors. It is relevant, it is the very heart of the foundation of USA.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I believe it is still relevant however it must be re-worded..

    0|0
    0|0
  • It should be relevant, yes.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Guns nullify the 1st Amendment. Who speaks freely in the barrel of a gun?
    The Founding Fathers voted the 1st. Amendment, realized that they had made an error and voted the 2nd. Amendment to fix it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The 2nd amendment was made as a defence against the government itself. Do you think the modern small arms (especially with te restrictions put on them nowadays) that your are legally allowed to own and operate can compete with tanks and predator drones? The 2nd amendment is still very much relevant but not for its original purposes.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Of course small arms are no match for military equipment and an invading military force would quickly take control.
      However maintaining control would be next to impossible given the number of small arms in private hands. Every citizen would be a potential sniper.

  • Yes, citizens have the right to have firearms in a reasonable quantity. However, there must be extensive background checks and the person must have be mentally healthy.

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 1

  • I think it should be reworded to only allow people trained in the use of a gun and gun safety to be able to own them.

    0|1
    0|0
Loading...