What is your opinion on the Second Amendment?

[c=#7700B2]I think everyone has the right to own firearms if they have gone through to process to have them[/c]

I'm generally pro-gun ownership, but the 2nd amendment was poorly designed, and left us with a retarded mess that we enjoy currently. It's fucking stupid, tbh.

I personally favor the Czech model of doing things - constitutional protections, without the insanity.


Oh, and anyone who's going to whine some rightoid nonsense at me better be prepared to explain why they're just fine and dandy with abridging the right to keep and bear [i]nuclear[/i] arms.

Citizens should have the right to own firearms

I think it’s pretty clear that citizens have the right to have firearms based on the 2nd Amendment. There are obviously limitations already agreed to (like I can’t have a grenade launcher, a fully automatic tommy gun, etc.), so there is already precedent as far as setting limits to the firepower we can have as individuals. One of the arguments seems to stem from [i]where[/i] to draw that line and not [i]if[/i] there should be a line. Anyone arguing absolutes on either side is on shaky ground here.

I’m in favor of background checks and other reasonable measures to address public safety. I also think guns on ranches and rural settings where it might take law enforcement a long time to respond has to be viewed differently than in population centers where law enforcement is prevalent. The environments are just vastly different, and a one size fits all approach is too simple. I also don’t think the government should be in the business of seizing firearms from law abiding citizens who’ve passed background checks and done everything they can possibly do the right way (which I truly believe the overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners do).

I’ve said on other issues that I’m pro choice across the board, and I’m coming from the same place on firearms and the 2nd Amendment. Currently, I do not personally own any firearms, which is my choice. Should I change my mind, acquiring one should remain my choice provided I haven’t done anything criminal or been legally proven too mentally unstable to own one.

The Bill of Rights is based on the fact that the government needs to be restrained by the people at times and it is only when the people are armed that the arms will not likely be needed. In other words all the rights are at risk without the Second. So yes, citizens have the right to own fire arms.

It's been written in a certain periode of time with a certain mindset. I'm not sure if the 2nd amendement would look the same if the same document was written in todays context.

I think it's been used in an overly dogmatic way by people that just really like to shoot their guns. I have no problem with people really liking to shoot their guns, I do have a problem with hypocrits that say it's all about protecting the nation while avoiding the problems guns have in that nation and then pointing towards the idea that they have to save themselves from a tyranical governement. It's the same hypocrisy of weed-smokers that say they support weed because of medical reasons, while they just want want to smoke weed.

For the people that support Trump and are heavily invested in the 2nd amendment conversation I would also like to add the following. People that talk about "true patriotism" and what "the founding fathers" would have wanted... and still support Donald Trump. How do you rationalise all the writings and the ideas of those same founding fathers on the fear for demagogues and poppulism? There is a reason why America has the electoral college and why the voting system is so complicated. It's because these early enlightenment-thinkers wanted to get away from "absolute power". They wanted to the poppulation to govern themselves (We the people). They also believed in rationality, but were verry weary that the overall poppulation wasn't "rational". I really don't get how you can support the 2nd ammendement on the argument of "patriotism", "the will of the founding fathers", ... and other U.S. sentiments. But vote for a demagogue, since that's exactly what the founding fathers were afraid of when they helped to create this system. I really don't get how all of this rhymes in conservative America today unless you are biased. 🤷‍♂️

Citizens DO have the right to own firearms. That said, there are those who for a number of reasons should not have access to firearms, such as mental illness, domestic violence, history of violence/confrontations with law enforcement, to name a few. One glaring omission is the criminal element in the US who have weapons (mostly illegal)(guns). They're not too high on the authorities' lists to be gone after and have those firearms taken from them.

I think your second part would be dependent on who(political party) at the time is the "Government".

You may be aware, but if not here's a related article. And for all those countries claiming they're gun violence is unlike America's, well there are like minded people in those counties who too, don't want the Gov't taking their guns from them. It's not unique to America. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/07/less-than-1-participate-in-new-zealand-gun-buyback/

Since guns have been stacking up in American homes for two hundred years and up until recently mad crazies couldn't get their hands on guns.

Because the crazies and criminals would be arrested and placed under supervision in a mental hospital or jail. Usually for most of their life.

Then the liberals got some power. They opened the doors and kept letting them go. Thanks liberals.

The 2nd amendment had its place and time, but it needs to be revised for modern times.

The people have the right to defend themselves, against a tyrannical government, and defend themselves, period.

Back in the day, King George's army had muskets, and we had muskets. There was a balance of power, that gave the people an advantage, if they chose to use it wisely. Today, Tyranny is not going to show its ugly face through armed suppression of the people, it is going to take the form of a combination of psychological measures, facilitated by technology. An AR-15, isn't going to be much useful there.

This, will be backed by airplanes, aircraft carriers, tanks, missiles, drones, etc, so our best bet, is to exercise our voting rights wisely, because that's the only defense mechanism we have against the government.

As to self-defense, sure, probably don't need an AR-15 for that, but how else are you going to compensate for your tiny penis?

When the Constitution was created in 1776, there were two or three reasons why a gun was needed. The first was for hunting, because that was how many people in those days put meat on the table. That reasoning translates over into modern times.

The second was for self protection, because those people lived in a dangerous time, when Native Americans were actively trying to kill them, (to say nothing of the Brits!). That reasoning also translates into modern times. There are some places in the United States where it is just not safe to live. In rural areas, if your home is invaded, by the time the police drive 20 miles to get to your farm ranch, you are already dead, unless you are a billionaire and you have one of those safe rooms and you just happened to get to it in time.

The third reason our founding fathers wanted us to be armed was because they were thinking about big government...King George, to be precise. Big government was taxing the hell out of them while disallowing any representation in Parliament, and the people rebelled against the taxes, the unfairness, and the cruelty of the British troops who were there trying to enforce the will of the British King.

Their thought was that they ALWAYS wanted to be armed, so that if their future government EVER became dominated by another despot, or by any form of unfair government that abused their rights, they would be able to fight against that government, and could, legally, be armed to do so. The founding fathers envisioned an armed militia, such as defeated the British in those days.

To that last point in the minds of our founding fathers, owning personal weapons is certainly not going to be effective against the massive warfare machines owned by our government. Our government owns fighter jets, tanks, missiles, drones...on and on and on, so for anyone to argue that an armed populace could be effective in taking down our government is pretty silly.

But the first two reasons for owning a gun are very good reasons.

And I believe that any form of government in the United States that wants to take away your rights is a despotic, totalitarian government.

Once one right is removed, it will seem easier for government to proceed to the next, and the next and the next... and soon you won't have the right to Super Size your soft drink in New York and you will be paying taxes so high your nose will bleed.

The second amendment is there to protect all our other rights. Without it we have no rights.

I think like anything else, it helps to be honest about the issue.

The pretext is that we should be allowed to own as many weapons of any sort in order to protect us from a tyrannical government. I think integrity of such a claim has long passed. A tactical unit can take me out without breaking a sweat regarding what weapons I might possess.

So let's be honest. We aren't looking to the 2A to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. That's boat has sailed. It's not coming back.

We look to the second amendment because we like guns. Period. Americans get our nut on guns. We did in my family. Came up with them. Hunting, shooting at targets. Just the craftsmanship of guns. The art and craft of it.

The only reason I entertain restricting gun access is because, like everything else in this time and place, more and more people take less and less personal responsibility. And that includes gun ownership and use.

Speaking for myself, and my own experience, it's not uncommon to be in the woods and to have people discharging weapons too close to residences and roads. It's not uncommon to find people discharging weapons in public places. Sure. In some cases it might be legal. But you don't shoot at water foul in close proximity of people kayaking or canoeing. It's more rare, but I've come upon people hunting and just leaving carrion to rot on trails.

My patriarchs would have broken my jaw for any of those things.

IMHO all this talk of 2A attenuations would be moot if people took more responsibility. Not just with their own weapons, but with the people in their lives. Break your kid's jaw if he uses a weapon inappropriately. If you have a friend, neighbor or family member talking crazy and violently-- get involved. If there are scary loners, reach out to them. Walk towards the people who are dangerous and troubled. It's easier to do that now, than do it when they are discharging a weapon in a school.

That's not a yes or no answer about 2A. But it's what I feel about guns.

Over the years of this young country's life, it had been mentioned multiple times that it is knowledge of the millions of gun owners here that has effectively kept any foreign army from attempting to overtake us.

A: I believe one should have the right to own fire arms in attempt to protect ones home and family.

Having military grade, fully automatic assault rifles with extended magazines is a tad excessive.

As are grenades.

In my opinion.

Yes American Citizens do have the right to keep and bear arms

Right now, the law of the land is outlined in the 2nd Amendment. A such, I respect it. But there's no verbiage on regulation; there's no reason why firearms and their ownership & use couldn't be regulated just as any product is.

Regulation is not restriction. It's sane and safe implementation.

The Bill of Rights most importantly tells us what the government Can Not do.
The second amendment specifically stated our right to be armed cannot be infringed:
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.

It says well regulated militia, which is today's National Guard. The NRA never officially endorsed private ownership until 1979, when Neal Knox and his cronies took over.

When it was written, fire arms fired a round a minute!!
What is it now?!!!!

Okay. If I was the enemy field marshall, I would look at the american population, having beaten the armed forces. And chose a few less populated fly over states. Nuke them Hiroshima style. Then offer the rest 7 days to gather their guns for collection and take out any state that doesnt make the deadline. Of course.. If the population wasnt armed, I wouldnt need to. Think on that.

I don't think from a practical perspective, the Second Amendment should have been interpreted the way it was.

I don't know if it will ever be amended, but I think the problems the interpretation creates will make calls for repealing it more likely.

Ultimately, though, I think the changes to how the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution are interpreted and enforced are likely to be far bigger concerns.

I totally agree with DexsterThePerplexer. Right is right, and fair is fair.

Yes, citizens should own firearms. To defend themselves from others who might harm them and defend against their own government

I own a small arsenal and keep a copy of the constitution over my mantle. Just sayin’.

ITs really very clear if you look at the 2A and supporting documents written by our founders.

The 2A talks about gun ownership in the context of a well-regulated militia, it has very clear guidelines, for what they thought a militia should look like.

Folks who think they should have military-style weapons, "just cause" are wrong, and need to really read the documents and data available to them.

they can be armed with firearms that existed when the law was introduced. Modern firearms should have should have restricting laws.

The Second Amendment needs to be revised in a way that would allow the government to control guns more effectively.

The second amendment defends my right to keep and bear arms.
No one is obligated to own guns.
I don't understand the other question.

I'm broadly in favour of citizens owning guns. I think gun culture is toxic and awful.

There's around 875 million documented guns on the planet and most likely an equal number of concealed pre documented, home assembled, falsely destroyed and small manufactured firearms on the planet. There are also an infinite collective number of blades, crossbows, spears tasers and various bludgeoning weapons.

Aside from the heavy artillery and massive attack armaments present on this rock.

In other words you'd have an equal chance at making fire against the law.

Meh. The Second amendment is OK I guess, but I don't really care all that much for sequels. I thought the first amendment was awesome, and it was a far bigger hit. They kept pumping a lot of them out though. I guess people couldn't get enough of them. Just how much life is left in this franchise?

Shall not be infringed. Ever.

First person that deletes my comments I stop the discussion and post something of my own - so I can say what I want. And everybody can just kiss my ass !

Forward I am pro second amendment. I own a plethora of fire arms. Mostly for collection and defense but I do have specific builds for NRA marksman competitions.

The world would be better without guns

Pro. The working class shouldn't be disarmed.

I think it’s acceptable for adults of sound mind to own fire arms when educated properly & having respect for the weapons. I know many people who enjoy attending gun ranges for fun on a day off. Others that like to hunt & many who keep in their home or on their person as a means of defense. I recognize gun violence as a problem & truly hate to see people kill each other. I myself have attended more than one funeral due to gang violence where guns were used. I understand some might think the law enforcement or military are the only ones who should have use for them. But I respectfully disagree. My own husband found himself with a home invaders gun barrel against his head. I could have lost him to a man with that kind of weapon. I think there needs to be give & take when it comes to these topics. Whether you are for firearms use or not I think we’re all for less violence.

I think firearms should be available for self defence. The police can't prevent most crimes so it's up to potential victims to look after themselves. I live in Ireland, where I am not allowed weapons to protect myself or my property. While that may prevent the occasional lunatic from trying something; it doesn't seem right to me that if an armed man tried to rob or kill me, I'd have to rely on his mercy.