it was made so that civilians could form their own militias in case they needed to overthrow an oppressive government, and was written shortly after the Revolutionary War.
Times have changed.
Good luck forming any kind of militia with your guns which will be able to overthrow a government with Tanks, Fighter Jets, Nuclear Arms, Drones, etc. at its disposal.
The relevancy behind the amendment is largely gone/changed. As society and technology change, we must continually reexamine, reinterpret, and adapt the constitution or our country will stagnate. Our country is already starting to stagnate socially compared to other Western countries, thanks to the religious right.
No. The problem leads to other issues. If the Supreme Court has the right to remove the 2nd Amendment then they can suspend the other rights. Those are my rights, government shouldn't have the right to remove them. HOWEVER, there needs to be stricter gun control and ban of certain riffles.
it was made so that civilians could form their own militias in case they needed to overthrow an oppressive government, and was written shortly after the Revolutionary War.
Times have changed.
Good luck forming any kind of militia with your guns which will be able to overthrow a government with Tanks, Fighter Jets, Nuclear Arms, Drones, etc. at its disposal.
The relevancy behind the amendment is largely gone/changed. As society and technology change, we must continually reexamine, reinterpret, and adapt the constitution or our country will stagnate. Our country is already starting to stagnate socially compared to other Western countries, thanks to the religious right.
if the freedom to defend yourself with a weapon of any kind is revoked then what's to stop the government from taking away our other freedoms?
the right to bear arms is a crucial freedom that defines whether or not we are willing to give up our right to protect ourselves on our own terms, if THAT goes, then you might as well say goodbye to the first amendment. freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly are compromised because now, without anyway to defend our right to our opinions or to stand up to things the government does we don't like, the government can take over. and freedom of religion will definitely be an unstable surface, who knows what'll happen there once the 1st amendment is revoked.
guns are a problem, duh. but we shouldn't get rid of them. its prominence has diminished, technology has changed. but what you're saying is that, so because it's futile to fight against the military, that's it we shouldn't have guns?
if the freedom to defend yourself with a weapon of any kind is revoked then what's to stop the government from taking away our other freedoms?
the right to bear arms is a crucial freedom that defines whether or not we are willing to give up our right to protect ourselves on our own terms, if THAT goes, then you might as well say goodbye to the first amendment. freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly are compromised because now, without anyway to defend our right to our opinions or to stand up to things the government does we don't like, the government can take over. and freedom of religion will definitely be an unstable surface, who knows what'll happen there once the 1st amendment is revoked.
What makes you think that the 1st Amendment would go because of the removal of the 2nd Amendment? Do you think the U.S. government, as messed up as it is, would honestly take away the 1st Amendment? I don't.
The government doesn't want to be tyrannical. The removal of the 2nd amendment would be a special case, because 1) the principle behind the amendment is outdated, 2) it would save thousands of lives., and 3) much of the public supports it compared to removing any other amendment.
What makes you think that the 1st Amendment would go because of the removal of the 2nd Amendment? Do you think the U.S. government, as messed up as it is, would honestly take away the 1st Amendment? I don't.
The government doesn't want to be tyrannical. The removal of the 2nd amendment would be a special case, because 1) the principle behind the amendment is outdated, 2) it would save thousands of lives., and 3) much of the public supports it compared to removing any other amendment.
I mean just...
The entire country is sunshine and daisies with pwetty wainbows and evwy buddy is nice and not cowupt.
No. The problem leads to other issues. If the Supreme Court has the right to remove the 2nd Amendment then they can suspend the other rights. Those are my rights, government shouldn't have the right to remove them. HOWEVER, there needs to be stricter gun control and ban of certain riffles.
it was made so that civilians could form their own militias in case they needed to overthrow an oppressive government, and was written shortly after the Revolutionary War.
Times have changed.
Good luck forming any kind of militia with your guns which will be able to overthrow a government with Tanks, Fighter Jets, Nuclear Arms, Drones, etc. at its disposal.
The relevancy behind the amendment is largely gone/changed. As society and technology change, we must continually reexamine, reinterpret, and adapt the constitution or our country will stagnate. Our country is already starting to stagnate socially compared to other Western countries, thanks to the religious right.
No. The problem leads to other issues. If the Supreme Court has the right to remove the 2nd Amendment then they can suspend the other rights. Those are my rights, government shouldn't have the right to remove them. HOWEVER, there needs to be stricter gun control and ban of certain riffles.
We already went and changed the constitution to add something as frivolous as a ban on alcohol sale and consumption, then went and changed the constitution again a few years later to reverse that. There is precedence for the government to do whatever they want with any amendment already. The constitution is far from immutable.
the right to bear arms is a crucial freedom that defines whether or not we are willing to give up our right to protect ourselves on our own terms, if THAT goes, then you might as well say goodbye to the first amendment. freedom of speech, press, petition and assembly are compromised because now, without anyway to defend our right to our opinions or to stand up to things the government does we don't like, the government can take over.
When the government has all the tools I listed at its disposal, if it REALLY wanted to, it could take that stuff away already.
Please, if the government went all out to try to shut that stuff down right now while people still have guns, what do you REALLY think civilian resistance will accomplish?
Because it is futile to fight against the military, the reasoning behind the entire amendment is called into question. That's all I'm saying. We should sit down, question it, examine it, determine how it applies to today's society, and adjust it accordingly. If that adjustment still let's some people have guns in some situations, fine. If it takes away everyone's guns across the board, fine. To say that people shouldn't question the amendment AT ALL simply because it's always been there is reactionary and silly.
If that adjustment still let's some people have guns in some situations, fine. If it takes away everyone's guns across the board, fine. To say that people shouldn't question the amendment AT ALL simply because it's always been there is reactionary and silly.
Nope, it's unconstitutional good luck taking away 300 million people's rights, you might be able to do such a thing in the United Continents of America in 2114 but it's not happenin' in 2014 US of A.
Nope, it's unconstitutional good luck taking away 300 million people's rights, you might be able to do such a thing in the United Continents of America in 2114 but it's not happenin' in 2014 US of A.
IMO, your right to ANYTHING ceases to exist once your exercising of that right puts the well-being of others in significant jeopardy.
That's similar to saying people have the right to keep their extremely sick children from receiving any medical treatment because that would be "against their religion." Freedom of religion only goes so far. Reasonable limits are something it is always valid to place upon a right.