Is the Right To Bear Arms as relevant now as it was in 1776?

The 2nd amendment is the only solid leg the rest of the constitution stands on.
Admiral Yamamoto rejected plans to invade the US, because he had attended college here. He told his staff if the Japanese attempted to invade us, they'd be met with a man, woman or child, hiding behind every blade of grass with a rifle.

We are going to need them "again".....no question about it. It's only a matter of how soon!

More so now than ever before.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's Liberty teeth and the keystone under Independence."
George Washington

absolutely

don't care

You hit the nail on the head! The loibs know from history what happens when citizens are disarmed and that's what they want!

In fact with the registration of our weapons and making us sign for ammunition this puts us in danger as well. At the rate that Congress refuses to put the President in check with all his executive orders and passing bill like NDAA our need for weapons is ever increasing.

Sure it is! Take away our right to arms and our country goes past the point of no return in taking away our liberties. This is one of the most important ones.

All the people who say that "guns kill people" are delusional and that reason does not hold water....

Guns save lives if put in the right hands. Crime would be less if the criminals knew every law-abiding citizen had a gun for protection...

It is critical in the fight against tyranny.

Amen to that!

We will ALWAYS have someone trying to take what we have. Our freedom or our land. It's up to every individual American to protect what belongs to them. Or it will be lost forever.

Yeah. Crime is worse now a days.... Take away our guns....and it will just give a free pass to the thugs of this nation... The fact that most Americans are armed is part of what helps keep America from being over run with crime...if Americans were not armed our enemies over seas would be more likely to invade....take away our rights to own fire arms...America will fall victim to crime you cant even believe....our own government will probably work against us....an unarmed population is much easier to control. better stand up America...im locked and loaded ready to defend my country...are you?

(^_−)−☆ how dare u question our rights

It's all that keeps criminals from taking over some areas.

Hell yes.

Very big gun

That looks like a replica of what Snake Plisskin Carries in escape from new York and the sequel escape from LA... Kurt russle movies.

I don't know where it came from but it would be a stopper. I have a much a smaller hang gun but it would do the job.

Nice.

We need th have the Government as afraid of us as it was then.

The sad thing is that at that time, the government was "us." You know what I mean? At some point there was a seperation from the citizens and their representatives and it needs to be set right. One way or another.

There is really no change in who "qualifies" as us. The Government still needs to be "afraid" of the people. The Second Amendment assures that.

More so now than ever. No one is safe. Going to sleep at night, we have to worry about home invasions etc.

The right to bear arms is still relevant in that citizens in a free society should be allowed to do whatever they want provided it does not unduly infringe upon the rights of others. Furthermore, this pursuit of happiness should not be unduly infringed upon by an overreaching state.



Having said that, I strongly disagree with those who wish to claim that citizens need guns in order to protect themselves. That is simply not true. Millions of U.S. citizens go about their business every day without firearms.



Likewise, those who wish to claim that we need guns to prevent the state from infringing upon our liberties have not really considered the full power of the state. A dozen assault rifles and a half million rounds of ammo will not protect anyone from a fully loaded AH-64A/D Apache Attack Helicopter.

We still need to protect our homes and family. In a world where the pizza delivery man shows up faster than the police, it is more relevant now than ever before!

More than ever.
A ruler should have a rope around his/her neck, it keeps them upright.
Firearms are the citizens rope.

Nonsense. The firearms we citizens own are nothing compared to the weapons wielded by the state. The most paranoid of gun nuts with a basement filled with assault rifles, rounds of ammunition and canned food would find himself helpless before the might of a single MIM-104 Patriot missile.

More so than ever, to protect ourselves from an increasingly intrusive and overreaching federal government!

None of the weapons you own would be sufficient to protect you from the might of the U.S. military. Seriously, what is your game plan for dealing with an M1 Abrams tank? A basement filled with assault rifles and canned food will not help anyone survive a MIM-104 Patriot missile attack.

I support the right of every citizen to own firearms; however, the notion that owning firearms would somehow protect us from our own government is ludicrous. It would be akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Wrong!!!! You seem to be forgetting that a determined group of small men in black pajamas, armed with AK-47s, sent the U.S. packing in Southeast Asia in 1973. Determined and well armed combatants, waging unconventional (guerrilla) warfare, with the support of a disaffected populace can, over time, defeat a larger conventional force. There have been numerous examples of this throughout history.

Extra exclamation points does not lend credibility to your claim. Your analogy does not hold.

You seem to be forgetting that over one million little men in black pajamas died prior to sending the U.S. military packing in Southeast Asia. You also seem to be forgetting that it is one thing to defend your homeland against foreign invaders; it is something else entirely to rise up in revolution against your own country.

Do you have a million allies who are ready, willing and able to die in a rebellion against the United States of America? The majority of U.S. citizens may grumble and complain, but they are neither a disaffected populace nor are they well armed combatants.

When it is all said and done, the vast majority of U.S. citizens would justifiably regard any self professed defenders of freedom as nothing more than home grown terrorists.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We have become an apathetic nation of sheeple, increasingly dependent upon, what is rapidly becoming, a Nanny State. That said, if the federal government were to become wildly repressive, there would probably be lots of individual acts of rebellion, similar to the tactics used by the Taliban. Perhaps, if enough of these were to occur, one could wear down the will of the federal government and effect some positive change.

I do not trust the state, either; however, they have no need to become wildly repressive. We keep giving up our freedoms for the illusion of security.

The patriot act compromised our right to privacy. The legislation that allows the state to test welfare recipients for drugs compromised due process. We already have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other nation in the world. These are just the examples I can cite off of the top of my head. With every law that is passed, we give up some measure of freedom.

I agree that the state is taking over, but not in the way that you envision. The government will continue to create monsters. The government will then ask for and receive power to combat these monsters. This power will then be used to further suppress and control the populace.

Not a cheery prospect! I agree with you about the Patriot Act...the worst piece of legislation ever devised! It holds the potential for huge abuses of power. Very scary!

Whenever a law is open to abuse, it will be abused. The crazy thing about the Patriot Act is that we did not need it. U.S. intelligence knew about the threat from Bin Laden and filed the appropriate reports long before 09/11. Why expand the powers of U.S. intelligence if it was already doing the job it was designed to perform?

It is the same thing with the drug testing of welfare recipients. I agree that people on welfare should not be spending their stipend on illegal drugs. The problem is that there is no evidence that those on welfare are spending their money on illegal drugs. Should we compromise due process to fight a problem that has not even been proven to exist? Regardless of the affect it will have on drug using welfare recipients, the impact this legislation has on the right to due process will affect all of us.

Regardless, I want to thank you for acknowledging my point. Against the power of the state, we are currently unarmed.

The 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 1791.

At that time a citizen could be as well armed as the military.

With the advancement of firearms the government has seen fit to INFRINGE upon that right by putting a BAN on certain firearms unless you pay for a tax stamp.

The government also INFRINGES on our civil rights by requiring personal information and background check to exert this CIVIL RIGHT.