You say you have the right to bear arms but at what point do we draw the line? Is it at a knife and sword? A handgun? An assault rifle? Can I go out, if I had the money, and buy nuclear arms, and other weapons or mass destruction? Maybe a stealth plane? The constitution says one has the right to bare arms, and maybe it had its good intentions when it was written, and maybe justly so in order for the people to defend themselves of future tyranny like the one of Great Britain at the time. However, did they anticipate the weapons that they are capable of creating now a days and the other technological advances? Surely not, I don't think many at the time did. It seems to me that simply saying one has "the right to keep and bear arms" entails that everyone should have the right to bear any arms they choose. Its quite a shady thing to allow given the world we live in today. Don't you think there should be some restrictions or perhaps even a revision of the constitution? If not, explain to me why I can't own weapons of mass destruction or fighter plane, because technically they are arms. If you agree that some lines must be drawn where do you think they should be drawn? Personally, the gun restrictions have worked great for us here in Canada, I dont need to own a gun because barely anyone around here uses one unless its for hunting. And thats usually just the rural areas. Its funny some of you call us your hat because to us you're the lower part of our ass. And I haven't really gotten many explanations to most of your answers. Its the same yankee response "it is what it is!" *fires several shot in the air* Still Quazee- First, don't talk about my country as if you've ever read anything about it because we do have a gun registry and I can very well go and get a gun if I wanted to. So, its not JUST criminals and police that own guns but if you look at the percentage of criminals that do, its quite small. And usually, its not your typical B&E criminal, its your mafioso criminal. Second, I wasnt aware that your constitution said "personal arms" I'm pretty sure it simply says "The right to keep and bear arms" thats it. So if you want to talk about context you only need to look at that one simple sentence. You can't just interpret it to be what you want it to be, acting like their is a line the everyone knows about, and then tell me that I'm wrong for wanting add restrictions. Its hypocritical and childish. You like stats, how about this, your country has the highest percentage of people in prison for gun crimes than any other industrial country except maybe china. So go shove your stats down
Politics - 30 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Neither. It is what keeps America free.
2 :
More like just right.
3 :
The Constitution is not meant to be the only law, it is just the law that trumps all others. It is constantly being interpreted and applied to changing situations by the Supreme Court, who go beyond a literal reading of the language to determine its meaning and what, if any exceptions may apply. That is why they decided a case against Pennsylvania's law against sword canes in 1789 and why they upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 which restricts and licenses the ownership of sawed off shotguns, grenades and machine guns. That is why the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that struck down the Districts prohibition of handguns delved into what the framers were thinking and into the legal history of the Englishman's right to keep and bear arms as an extension of the natural right of self-defense, and determined that the "militia" referred to the whole populace and not just the National Guard, and that it is not reasonable to restrict handguns in the way that grenades are.
4 :
No. It is as plain and clear as the ink on the paper. The far left has tried to rewrite the obvious rights stated therein. If you close one eye and squint just right after spinning in circles you might have a problem reading the words "right to keep and bear arms".
5 :
no it's fine as is!! most killings are over the stupid drug laws!! legalize drugs and the homocide rate goes down by 75%
6 :
No. This is why we live in America and you live in Canada...otherwise known as "America's Hat". That is about all you are good for.
7 :
If you believe it should be changed, go ahead and convince 38 state legislatures to agree with you. The federal government cannot ignore the constitution just because you decide that parts of it are bad. If it ignores its founding document, it is illegitimate.
8 :
I think it is pretty much a given that when some law was poorly written, it will also be poorly interpreted, too. But if we are going to discuss which amendment was poorly written and does get very, very poorly interpreted, I'd rather delve into a discussion about the 14th than the 2nd.
9 :
When it comes to talking about criminals, the verbiage doesn't matter. The facts clearly show that if criminals want specific weapons, that they will find a way to get them.
10 :
I think people like to ignore the fact it contains a statement of purpose.
11 :
It's written and interpreted clear by me. Clearly being from Canada you'd have a very different opinion on the right to bear arms, Canada is Americas top hat, made up of tories. EDIT: Call me a yankee, that's fine. What's wrong with saying "it is what it is" when it's written in the Bill of Rights, part of the founding document, the Constitution, that our country was founded on. Do you want me to say sorry for being different than Canada? Not a chance. Do you want every country to be the same or something? Why do you care anyway? Don't push YOUR personal agenda on OUR country.
12 :
The INTENT was for the citizens to possess the physical means by which to oppose the tyranny of future governments. That implies that they wanted the citizens to be able to go to war with the government and today that would require semi auto weaponry at least.
13 :
Poorly interpreted. The founding fathers meant that you have the right to have a bear's arms on your wall.
14 :
If no one had means to defend themselves only the outlaws with weapons would have them. Also you can't buy different types of weapons because of individual court rulings an laws.
15 :
My opinion is the handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles are all okay. Handguns are a more self defence approach, shotguns are obviously more for hunting and sport, and rifles are more for leisure and personal enjoyment
16 :
to the first poster America hasn't been free since Nixon took office, To answer the question, the whole US constitution was badly written by a gang of illiterate colonists too ungrateful for all the freedoms they had in the new world decided they no longer wanted to pay their taxes like the rest of us.
17 :
No. In all honestly, if they meant muskets and swords, it's because that was the weapons of the time. That needs to be extrapolated out. It's not for hunting, it's for personal and state defense. Really, Canadians need to stay out of our business. You don't even have a right to worry about it.
18 :
Neither. I think it was poorly thought through and it's outdated. It was intended for militias to be able to maintain enough power to raise an army. The idea was protection from tyranny. Principally, the protection intended was from foreign tyranny, as the US had no standing army and would need to raise one from organized militias at the time it was written. Also, though, it had the intended purpose of allowing the people to physically prevent our own government from becoming tyrannical. It was written to allow military grade weapons in the hands of the people. That is so clearly a bad idea in today's world that even proponents of original intent who are card carrying members of the NRA don't think the average citizen should be able to get their hands on rocket propelled grenades, tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, or other heavy artillery. Not including automatic weapons and assault rifles on the list of weapons people shouldn't have perplexes me, though.
19 :
Neither, and a stealth plane is a vehicle.
20 :
Neither. It was well written and interpreted
21 :
both. It says nothing about guns or nuclear weapons.
22 :
Nobody agrees but I think the intent was - In order to control the militia, the citizens have a right to bear arms. It should have been written better.
23 :
It was well written for the time it was conceived and written in. Remember the first peoples of the US were not that far removed from Europe where kings and their armies yielded enormous power and control over the lives of the commoners. The idea of the the 2nd Amendment is a good one for that time period. Allow for a armed and well regulated militia just in case the government is uncontrollable. Remember also that the Constitution also forbaded for there to be a standing army.
24 :
Wow, where did you cut and paste this original thought from, our liberal Canadian 'friend'? Your typical liberal 'over the top' and rediculous 'example' of so called personal arms are as brilliant as ever presented by any other anti-gun rights dingbat. So let me point out that no one in your frozen wasteland of a nation other than CRIMINALS and the police have guns, right? And you're sooooo safe, huh? Unless the bad old wolf comes to huff and puff and blow YOUR door down. Then how long do you wait for the cops to show? As far as a disamred nation goes, how 'bout good old UK to show how well that works. All private firearms are illegal. Who has guns? Nobody but the crimnals. Safe? London is now the most dangerous city in the EU. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a989600-b53e-11db-a5a5-0000779e2340.html#axzz1B1Lj1xda
25 :
Somewhat poorly written, they shouldn't have put in the flavor text about militia for instance, that just makes it needlessly confusing.
26 :
Ah Ha, another who believes STOP signs are poorly written, open to "interpretation", and outdated. Such lame nitpicking. Good luck with your new dictionary. (you will need a new Country to implement it in) The star is not for approval, just to draw attention to your idiocy.
27 :
Neither. Anti anything will call black white to get their way.
28 :
Who gives a shit your just some Canadian. It's not like your opinions hold any merit anyways because you are not a voter in our country.
29 :
We used to laugh at the 2nd Amendment in history class; I went to a Canadian school so of course I'm not some ignorant, right-wing American. Hey, what is it about free speech that SO bothers you right-wingers? Canadians have more rights that you Yanks have, after all, we didn't bail out of fighting both World Wars until it was too late to matter. We have guts, and we know how to READ. Suck that up, right-wingers!
30 :
I just love how most of the people are soooooo hurt by what you just said even though you're absolutely right. They attack you and say "who cares about your opinion, you're just a Canadian" or " Canada is just USA's hat...". While you guys could say that US is Canada's underwear.... I think it was well written at the time but for some reason people still follow this Amendment and doesn't want to update it at all. Regardless of the fact that US population was 2-3 million back then and now it's 100 times larger. And the technology is waaaay superior. I guess the Amendment made sense then when the "arms" were muskets and pistols that were pretty much miserable weapons compared to modern sniper rifles, assault rifles, light machine guns, carbines, machine pistols, shotguns, grenades, grenade launchers, or even flame throwers and anti-tank weapons. And the nuclear technology.... Conservatives. I blame them.
