Today Is the 221st Anniversary of the Second Amendment: Do You Support the Right to Bear Arms?

by The Big Question Posted 2012/12/15 09:00:00

Related Topics: Right To Bear Arms, Anniversary, Second Amendment

Read More

639 votes
Read all 850 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	523 votes	82%
	No	116 votes	18%

+13

Add a comment above

☆Warthog - PWCM - JLA☆ 2012/12/15 14:40:43

Yes

+23
I support the 2nd Amendment 100%. For many reasons.

For those of you that believe that by making firearms illegal all guns and gun crimes will go away, I have a couple of simple questions.

Yes or No.

Is cocaine and heroin illegal? Yes or No.

Is it possible to acquire cocaine or heroin? Yes or No.

If we cannot keep illegal drugs of the streets with laws that have been on the books for decades and have been actively inforced. Why do you believe that guns will magically disappear?

Just as with drugs the honest law abiding citizens will obey the law but the criminals will still have access. Leaving a country full of unarmed victims.
>> See Replies

More polls by The Big Question

Th8nos 2013/01/14 09:02:52

Yes

reply
Soundstorm 2013/01/09 22:34:38

Yes

Each of the ten amendments that comprise our Bill of Rights are part of the compact by which our original 13 states agreed to join in a union in the first place and for every state since then. If any part of that original ten is repealed it breaks the contract of the United States and no state is obligated any longer to be a part of it. The liberal establishment has effectively gotten away with defining the tenth amendment down to a meaningless letter. And they continue to try to do the same with the second by confusing the meaning of militia as being in opposition to individual rights of ownership.

reply
max reilly 2013/01/07 03:57:24

Yes

+1
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”

― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

Wise man.

reply
Soundstorm to max reilly 2013/01/09 22:36:53

There may be more good men than evil but as our last election has shown we have a considerable demographic of the deceived.

reply
ProVega 2012/12/20 04:15:18

Yes

+1
When the second amendment was ratified in 1791 the following was true about guns. These are the kind of arms they were talking about. Not the crowd killers the NRA is protecting today. The arms have changed their regulation must change.

Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breach loaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)

reply
gary ® to ProVega 2012/12/28 00:50:03
ProVega to gary ® 2012/12/29 21:21:27

What sh*t? What Fan?

reply
gary ® to ProVega 2012/12/30 17:39:41

+1
Precisely the point

reply
Soundstorm to ProVega 2013/01/09 22:44:07

What safe and secure gated community do you live in?

reply
Soundstorm to ProVega 2013/01/09 22:42:22

Your assumption that the second amendment covers only the firearms available back in 1791 comes out of thin air. There's nothing in the text that states that regulations should change with technical advances.

reply
ProVega to Soundstorm 2013/01/11 00:23:01 (edited)

You must "believe" in the bible too? It was written even longer ago. Wake up and enjoy the learning we have done over the past several hundred years.

reply
Soundstorm to ProVega 2013/01/12 01:27:04

+1
How did this become about the Bible? Do you always change the subject when your arguments fall flat?

reply
ProVega to Soundstorm 2013/01/13 08:31:12

Learn how to read.

reply
Soundstorm to ProVega 2013/01/14 00:47:37

Try following your own advice before you go backing yourself into corners by ranting about things you're totally ignorant about.

reply
ProVega to Soundstorm 2013/01/14 02:00:11

Sorry. I don't have time for you.

reply
Soundstorm to ProVega 2013/01/14 02:02:43

Posting that reply makes you a liar. What you really never take time for is thinking.

reply
wildbill 2012/12/18 16:01:59

No

+1
Do you believe the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to own and use semi automatic Combat weapons with 100 bullet clips in public places?

Here are SOME people that would disagree:
http://www.courant.com/news/c...

reply
Darr247 to wildbill 2012/12/23 16:51:05

+1
It was intended for ordinary citizens to have the power to keep the military under control. That's what "well regulated militia" meant then, and the courts have ruled over and over that's what it STILL means. Ask anyone living under the thumb of a junta how they feel about your argument.

reply
wildbill to Darr247 2012/12/24 19:17:24 (edited)

What I am saying is that when the Constitution was written the only firearm the authors knew of was a weapon that took about 15 seconds to load and fire. The musket had no boring and was not accurate. It's only REAL advantage over the bow and arrow was it's terrible noise. They could never CONCEIVE of a weapon that could shoot 4 to 6 bullets in a second and HOLD AND FIRE 100 bullets in a minute.
Most gun owners would say they don't need an assault weapon with a 30 round clip for sport or for personal protection. The gun lobby and the NRA extremists have struck fear into our governing process long enough.
It's time to realize that 280 million firearms in America may be enough. Between 2000 and 2008, a total of 272,590 people died of gunshot injuries in the United States--an average of 30,288 gun deaths per year, a number shocking by comparison to any other developed country.
It is not the good guys with guns vs. the bad guys with guns like the NRA says. It's the good guys with guns going mentally unhinged with a Bushmaster and shooting our children and all the good people around them before they shoot themselves.

reply
max reilly to wildbill 2013/01/07 03:48:56

+1
You are uneducated. What the hell is "boring"? Now, if you had said "rifling" I might have taken you seriously, but your vocabulary was incorrect. And, also interesting, Cars killed a total of 292,249, with an average slightly higher than that of firearms. Also interesting, most firearms deaths are suicides (55.6%) and most homicides committed with firearms (71-73%) are committed with illegally purchased weaponry. Also, you mention weapons that hold and fire 100 bullets in a minute. That is wrong. The rifle issued to the Marines fires at a rate of 700 rounds per minute. This is a feature which is known as "fully automatic" (you ignorant moron) and has been banned since the eighties. Also, there are 310 million firearms in the United States, according to the census.

You were wrong on four counts, and you used crappy statistics. Normally I would begin my rebuttal right about here, but I think you have made that unnecessary. Thanks.

reply
gary ® to wildbill 2013/01/11 06:20:01

If that's what you're fighting AGAINST, then that's what you want to fight WITH. It's not about hunting, or burglars. It's about defending liberty against tyranny. http://english.pravda.ru/opin...

reply
wildbill to Darr247 2013/04/26 21:51:24 (edited)

You are trying to tell me that my 30/30 or 22 is suppose to be my protection from the United States Armed Forces? That is just not my idea of "Supporting Our Troops." I have too many trees around the house to even get a shot off at a jet fighter. They are not big enough to scratch a personnel vehicle carrier either.
The men who adopted our Constitution in 1787 didn't expect it's citizens to keep the Continental Army "in check" with their powder muskets either. Heck they didn't even imagine that it's adult citizens could vote, let alone take a shot at George Washington. Only land owners could vote.

reply
Soundstorm to wildbill 2013/01/09 22:47:02

Gotta keep up with other bastard's firepower if you want to survive. If you've got a problem with multiround clips go lecture HIM about it

reply
Gunluvr to wildbill 2013/04/25 18:11:05

Yes it is meant for citizens to have weapon parity with the military, end of story.

reply
roxie 2012/12/18 09:25:20

No

+2

reply
Jane to roxie 2012/12/18 15:30:57

Cute, makes as much sense as comparing guns with drugs.

reply
cathy mendoza 2012/12/17 16:11:52

Yes

+1
It all depends Just like everything some people should never have any kind of arms

reply
S Perkins 2012/12/17 13:33:03
cwoo10 2012/12/17 12:04:55

Yes

+1
I can't chase down that deer, and I loves me some venison.

I don't own a handgun, so please don't take my hunting ability away!

reply
Jane to cwoo10 2012/12/18 15:34:03

I agree, but we really should not have all these automatic and semiautomatic weapons out there in the general population. They should only be made for the military, which by the way is being given to much money and power.

reply
max reilly to Jane 2013/01/07 03:50:12

Again, automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1980s. Get your facts right, moron.

reply
Jane to max reilly 2013/01/09 18:18:46

Whatever, ass wipe.

reply
Bob Anderson 2012/12/16 23:09:58

Yes

+1
Yes, until the day i die

reply
Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2012/12/16 22:03:44

Yes

+2
It is the civil right that protects all the other civil rights.

reply
Torchma... to Torchma... 2012/12/16 22:10:08

+1
Look at the crime rate in the countries that made guns illegal.
It's pretty bad when the NRA is told to quit reporting on the crime rate in their country.

reply
Jane to Torchma... 2012/12/18 15:35:45

They have told many lies when it comes to Australia, so you can't trust anything they say.
So who told them to shut up besides me?

reply
skisicks 2012/12/16 21:44:43

Yes

+1
Being as I was in the military, I think as long as proper weapons training has been shown to a person, they should have the right to own a gun. It is not the weapon that is dangerous, but the person behind the gun that can be dangerous.

reply
brittany 2012/12/16 20:00:20

Yes

+1
to bear arms and protect yourself? yes. but just to shoot and kill people? no.

reply
Royo 2012/12/16 15:23:06

Yes

+2
BUT If you are mentally unstable you shouldn't have access to a gun. Don't make everyone suffer because some people don't know how to raise a responsible kid.

reply
Kaleokualoha 2012/12/16 07:12:41

Yes

+1
WITH restrictions!

reply