If there is insufficient police presence, then you owe it to where you live to lobby for increasing or forming an auxiliary police force to supplement the career force. We did that were I live and have plenty of police presence and hence, a low crime rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_police First of all, the warren case is one incident and your labeling all police as being (in my opinion) cowards and/or slackers. It's a typical excuse of gun huggers used to justify their reason to be armed to the teeth and I cannot buy into that concept. Secondly, police receive a lot more training then the typical civilian on the use of fire arms and police tactics. I'll take a police officer any day over an over enthusiastic gun slinger looking to shoot someone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime They don't have all the "power"; as a citizen you have the power of the vote and still maintain the right to own fire arms; nowhere did I call for the total elimination of all guns. If you think I did, then its just hysterics on your part. No. tyrannical governments are voted out; there are checks and balances in the constitution which guarantee that. Maybe you want the second amendment eliminated, I never called for the elimination of the 2nd amendment; only if it was modified, for the elimination of some weapons, but not all. What I think is not important; what the majority of Americans think is important. If a majority feel its appropriate to modify or even eliminate those amendments, then so be it.
(Utah? One state does allow the ownership of nuclear weapons) you may own a nuclear weapon but you may not detonate it. - - - Updated - - - Legitimate voting ended the moment electronic voting came to being. One line of code and look, this party now has 4 million more votes than the other party. The government is playing the citizens,
No. Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution. The purpose and Intent is clearly in the first clause.
The 2nd amendment is perfect as written. What needs to be changed is the educational level of liberals. The base issue is not and never has been guns. The base issue is the inalienable right of every person to have the means and the ability to protect themselves. That is the first and foremost right of every living thing, the right to protect it's own life. Anyone who believes that any government, police force, or any other entity outside of the individual themselves has the ability to protect them in a life threatening situation is simply living a complete fantasy.
Even if you had a million police officers in your city, they can't be everywhere all the time. If somebody breaks into a house, how often do you think there's going to be a police officer close enough to actually stop them? It is VERY rare that police officers stop crime. Their job is to enforce the law, but their job is not to protect individuals, and they often can't. This is not really there fault, this is just because of the nature of criminals. A criminal is probably not going to commit a crime in a place where there are lots of police officers. I'm not sure if I've mentioned this yet, but I don't own a gun, and I never have. Yes, the warren case is one incident, and I'm not trying to label all cops as cowards or slackers. I respect police, and I understand their importance, however I do not trust them. While the police may receive more training, there are MANY cases (not just warren) that support my hypothesis that police shouldn't be trusted. Often times, police get away with overusing violence because they often have other police officers to corroborate their story (and that's basically the code of the men in blue), and it's hard to prove the guilt of a police officer to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. They do have all the power in some sense. The government is the only institution in this country that has a monopoly on force. Allowing only police officers to have guns means that they are the only people with the power to defend themselves against criminals. Right, because tyrannical governments have NEVER been democratically elected. This also supposes that we can trust the government. This is something that I, like you, believed at one point in time. Then I learned about history and realized I was wrong. FDR forcibly removed an entire race of people from their homes without due process or probably cause. Millions of Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps. The case went all the way up to the supreme court, which decided that Executive order 9066 was a constitutional exercise of power by the executive branch. Lincoln threw civil war protesters in prison without due process, and even after the courts ordered him to let the courts determine their guilt, he refused. The executive branch as a lot of power, and in times of emergency, that power is greatly expanded. To trust the government is very naive, and almost every society in history who has made the mistake of trusting the government too much has paid a very hefty price. "I say amend it to clarify that the only weapons allowed to be in possession of civilians would be Shotguns, manual bolt action rifles, musketry and bb/pellet guns. All other weapons should be banned except for law enforcement/military. The banning of all other weapons will ultimately over time reduce violent crimes; the use of the above mentioned weapons will still allow people to protect their property and life." This is essentially eliminating the 2nd amendment as we know it. People could not carry any kind of handgun to defend themselves, and it would lead to a monopoly on guns by criminals who carry guns on the street. So if the majority of Americans thought we should imprison and torture Jewish people, then we should do it? The constitution isn't there to defend the majorities opinions or thoughts, it's there to protect the minorities rights. One of those rights is the right to bear arms, which includes handguns, to defend themselves.
It should not be changed. The right to defend one's self against tyranny, and criminals is inalienable. Pretty major right.
Even though the voting has ended, I don't think it should be amended. This amendment has been in our constitution since the beginning of this country, and it shouldn't be changed. I don't like the idea of not being able to "Defend" ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic. You never know when someone is going to invade this country, but when they do they better be ready to fight every American on this soil.
telling us that muzzle loaders, single shot .22, and breakdown shotguns against full auto that cops carry and those 18th century firearms are going to do a lot of good against tanks. No, you don't want to see us disarmed, just waaaaaaaaaaay under armed against criminals and the police state........kinda like taking us to the point where it doesn't matter, we couldn't resist if we wanted to..... ever find that clause that says the government is responsible for your personal safety? typical Borg..............
ever buy that nuke you said everyone can own? How bout a nuclear derringer? I really want one of those the Borg comment was about the hive mind, not the idiot robots
and yet the reference never failed................at least ya didn't deny being part of the hive mind...........cuz all I keep hearing out of you is that resistance is fultie
Why not fix a simple Standard for a class of Arms meant specifically for persons who are considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.
Let's see, some what the 2nd Amendment amended to be the opposite of what it is. Sen. Reid wants to get rid of the pesky 1st Amendment as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and religious freedom are all hated by his folks. We've already lost the protection against double jeopardy and facing your accusers. Property rights are a joke as the government takes what they want with civil seizure. The current President doesn't agree with the checks and balances of the three equal parts of government and longs for a socialist dictatorship such his friend Hugo Chavez had and the Castro brothers still have. We have crimes of thought in hate crimes. The left doesn't want the electoral college to select the president. They'd prefer a few large city-states select the president. The seem to believe the states should be restricted to only carrying out the mandates of the elites in Washington. Why don't we quit nitpicking and just get rid of the Constitution?
