Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?

Question

If you aren't then why not be against them all? Do you think our Founding Fathers, who were mostly Christian, should have let England take over and not fight back for our freedom? Do you forget that they are trying to take away our freedoms one by one in order to make our country WOKE?

goaded · Accepted Answer

Cute picture. The little detail of the "well-regulated militia" part that gets ignored is possibly the biggest problem. If you wouldn't be accepted into the military, you probably shouldn't have a gun. If you don't realise that the real militia is under the command of the local government, you probably shouldn't have a gun. If you're a clear danger to others, you probably shouldn't have a gun.

For a century or more, nobody had a problem with places banning firearms, including towns and cities. Hand them in when you arrive, get them back when you leave (as long as the office is open when your train leaves!).

DontAskMePeople · Accepted Answer

Nice Camera 😂 Definitely be able to shoot some nice pictures with that beauty 👍

nightdrot · Answer

We accept, with any right, the potentiality that it may conduce to evil as much as it may conduce to good. The method by which a right is exercised is less consequential then the social context and intellectual suppositions in which it is exercised.

The real issue with the Second Amendment is that rights are viewed by Americans in absolutist terms. As Burke pointed out, such "natural rights" do exist, but "their abstract perfection is their practical defect." Such rights are applied with too little regard to the cultural context in which they exist.

There is much to suggest that the culture is incapable of prudently and sensibly managing the rights it abstractly attributes to itself. Alexander Hamilton made the point that if you have a Bill of Rights you extend to the government the authority to regulate those rights.

Indeed, the regulation of those rights is actually routine. Free speech is limited by slander, perjury, defamation and copyright laws, among others. Freedom of religion is allowed consistent with public order - if a religion calls for human sacrifice, it is prohibited. There are other examples and the list is long.

However, in the matter of the right to bear arms, in part, guns are woven into the culture in various ways. An emphasis on self-defense - particularly in urban areas where crime tends to be high - rural areas where hunting is an important sport, gun collectors and gun clubs, and, as you noted, an ethic rooted in America's libertarian traditions of resistance to tyranny. (Though the notion that the government is a threat to liberty at this interregnum in the nation's life is patently absurd. So supine is the government that it cannot even balance its budget lest it ask the public to pay for what they buy.)

The segment of the population that tends toward absolutism on the Second Amendment is actually quite small, but is extremely intense. Whereas those who take a more nuanced view of gun rights tend to be less intense and more ambivalent. It is not generally their top priority and so the country tends, on the whole, to give both culturally and legally a wide scope to gun rights.

However, it is not at all clear that the culture, as it devolves into a populist tone and an abstract libertarianism with an emphasis on individualism at the expense of community standards, that the society can handle responsibly the rights it has accrued to itself. Including gun rights.

Burke said "men have no right to that which is not reasonable," and rights must be defined through the prism of the context in which they are exercised. What the nation has in the Second Amendment is a right that presupposes an ethic of community standards that are at this moment in the nation's life, at best, fraying. In short, that presupposition needs to be re-examined and, pace Hamilton, the right needs to be regulated in the light of such a re-examination.

In short, what matters is not the method, but the ethical and social context in which rights are defined and exercised. Americans are, in this time in history, inclined to view freedom as an end in itself and not a means to an end and thus rights are defined in absolutist terms. Here is where the problem begins.

WindAtMyBack · Answer

I'm strongly in favor of our right to own guns.

Whether or not it should have been in the Bill of Rights is another question. Those who argued against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights had valid arguments, and turned out to be somewhat prophetic

It applies to the entire Bill of Rights, but I'll keep it in the context of the second amendment. The argument is that because the Constitution does not give the government the authority to take away people's guns, then they can't. So the 2nd amendment, and all the others, were not necessary.

They lost the argument, but it had enough validity that they added the 10th amendment, which was a catch-all amendment. It basically says that if the federal government is not explicitly given the authority to do something, then they can't.

Owning a firearm was such a common sense thing and such a basic tool, that it was understood that people had a right to do it. There shouldn't have been any need to write it down.

But look at what we have now. They've all but thrown away the most important amendment, which was the 10th. The government can't take your guns away because they were not explicitly given that authority.

motownplayer2000 · Answer

I’m for it. For the most part. There are illegal gun owners that have guns that do bad things. However, there are legal gun owners that also do illegal shit with guns. And ultimately make poor decisions. Overall, I’m not opposed to gun ownership. However, I think certain people that display certain traits should be banned from having guns. That could be on the left side of the right side.

As far as your other thing, lol. It’s not necessarily them taking your rights away.. I mean it is, but people with the mindset I know my rights and I will defend it. No, rights isn’t a thing. It’s a fabrication. We don’t have rights. Just because a document states it, doesn’t mean you automatically have it. Someone has to enforce those rights. So this, these people are trying to take away your rights.. and y'all fighting over if it’s the democrats or what not.. you are fighting there war. Both sides are pushing for power. So it’s not that your rights are infringed it’s the fact they are playing political games you don’t understand and doing things they want you to do to distract you.

Now I’m not saying don’t listen to the government. It’s necessary for law and order, however, understand they can take your rights away tomorrow and there is nothing you can really do about it.

Lliam · Answer

I am an adamant champion of second amendment rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The right to self defense is one of those self-evident, unalienable rights. Every organism evolved defensive capabilities. It's nature.

I could go on and on about the benefits of gun ownership. The arguments against it are based on carefully scripted propaganda.

That being said. I don't know why anyone would need a rapid fire weapon like the one in the photo. That thing looks scary ! ROFL

Kaneki05 · Answer

The most damning thing about the 2nd Amendment it was at least argued to as the reason why was to stop slaves from revolting.
I think 2 of the founding fathers took this position. Then they hypocritically claimed it was for freedom.

American's don't realize the fathers were just people with their own agenda's and tbh I bet at least half of them would agree in today's world not having modern guns of such power.
And yes in fact I would argue the fathers would loved it if England ran US compared to how it all turned out, did you know despite them been mostly Christian none wanted religious laws aka church vs state which ironically England is more like that now while America is stuck with fools thinking Abortion should be illegal cause god say's so and that works in some states smh.
If England was in Charge all states wouldn't be able to have such religious laws.

Snakeyes7 · Answer

For it. I love when people point out the "well regulated militia" part while applying the modern interpretation of "regulated" meaning that the government has it grubby tentacles all over it, completely defeating the point.

They also completely skip the part where it says right after that: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't matter what "well reguated militia" means, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, period. The only way one could lose it is through due process and that's it.

MisterWack · Answer

If it is handgun, shotgun, pistol, sniper rifle, etc. then sure. Not weapons of war.
No tanks, No bazookas, No RPGs, No AK47, No AR15, and more without a special ID / authorized purchase from a well trusted gun store following background check / mental wellness examinations.

NaultD · Answer

I Don't like the wording "right" to have arms but maybe "duty" is better fitting.

Do people have a right to open fire on their fellow peers vs duty to protect fellow peers.

What else is a gun useful for? right to muder or duty protect?

AviatorTom · Answer

I am for the 2nd amendment as it was originally written, and the reason for it. During the American Revolution, British soldiers seized the guns of colonists, and the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that didn't happen again. Unfortunately, the meaning of the amendment has been expanded by interpretation. Nowhere does it say that anyone can have any type of arms, yet that is what many now believe, and get very upset when that is questioned.

Alex-Snow · Answer

I think it is far too liberal. When it was written they had no idea what an AR 15 or multi shot assault rifles were. It should pertain to only in home use like a pistol or for hunting rifles. One does not need an assault gun for self defense... they are for mass killings. I know this will piss of some NRA people, but another amendment is called the Freedom of Speech!

KostasKouvalis · Answer

For, but I think it should have some limitations. Take for example, that gun you posted. You can't hunt with it, and you don't need that much fire power for self-defense. So there's absolutely no reason for you to own a gun like that. You don't need to engage in recreational shooting. Find yourself another hobby

sawno · Answer

Strongly in favor, I want to be able to defend myself.

sage2021 · Answer

I am for it because these days you don't know what you're going to come up against.
You have to defend your family and yourself.
I just think the gun in the picture tells it's own story. This gun is for killing people. Even innocent people.

kylee2437 · Answer

I mean as much as I am for the 2nd amendment, I do agree with the picture in a sense. A right to bear arms shouldn’t include a gun that does tremendous amounts of harm within seconds. I think every thing should have its limits

zombiewoof · Answer

I am for the 2nd amendment, it includes the words well regulated, our founding fathers were not mostly christian, they were atheist, agnostic, liberals, the vonservetives remained loyal to the king felt he was ordained by God and wanted to remain part of Britain

D_D_D · Answer

@Daniela1982 am I hallucinating or is that camera equipment shaped like a rifle? 😂

RetroReviews · Answer

I'm for it you should have a right to bear arms to protect yourself and your family. Criminals have guns so you you can't just rely on a phone to protect you maybe times where you got to return fire

dustybiker2 · Answer

Who's trying to take your freedoms? They fear mongering on fox again?

Nerdvana · Answer

Why did you ask a question about the 2nd amendment and put a pic of a long lens camera? But to answer your question, I am for the 2nd amendment in context that it was originally written.

Surely · Answer

That gun you need to have the person say “Cheese Burger “. Before you shoot them!

PA19062024 · Answer

The "founding fathers" were actually mainly deists and atheists, and their plan was to establish a nation based upon secular, humanistic values, rather than superstitious, religious ones.

Kelley1 · Answer

People need such weapons as protection from the our oppressive government.

Guacamole409 · Answer

I'm totally against it, and that's why I keep my gun hidden.

exitseven · Answer

take pictures?

Alexandrubaschet08 · Answer

I'm pro-second amendment. But i will not be against if gun control is implemented.

Danny_dan92 · Answer

I’m for it. Let a criminal decide to break into my house. They’re done for

Iron_Man · Answer

What kind of guns do you have in your house? That you personally own not your father or brother, but that you personally own

Juxtapose · Answer

I am a citizen, not a subject. Disarm me at your own peril.

In_Trance · Answer

Most of the answers you hace so far, demonstrate that people have no idea what it even means.  People are so stupid

Likes2drive · Answer

I’m for it but not all weapons are created equal

Dongie · Answer

You have to have the second A. What do you think keeps those fucking jerks from locking us up?

SugarSugarplum · Answer

2A all the way

spartan55 · Answer

100% for the 2nd Amendment

Massageman · Answer

For. Forever.

Dargil · Answer

It's the law.

Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.