by 
ShiroJuno
ANSWERS: 17
-
Absolutely with no restrictions, back ground checks, bans, registrations or anything that limits are Constitutional freedoms.
-
Sure, I don't see the problem with everyday citizens carrying rocket launchers everywhere they go.
-
They should be allowed to carry only single shot guns,the ones that require the person to load the gun each time.No automatic firing guns.I disagree with guns for anyone,but I am not the majority.That constitutional right is so vague,one could argue that people should not have the right to guns. There will be a constant battle with people disagreeing with the exact terms used in the constitution.To me it implies that one belongs to a organized militia in order to have the right to own a gun,and almost all whom own guns are not part of a militia.
-
The 2nd amendment was adopted to keep the Federal government from taking away our freedoms by force as England did. Therefore, a strict interpretation would be YES, it should include all firearms and other hand held weapons. We can argue that times and weapons are different, or the amendment was intended for a state militia not individuals, and finally that crazies could harm people with such weapons. All true, crazies can harm people with all manner of non-firearms too, such as driving their car into a crowd of people. Freedom of car ownership is not guaranteed in the Constitution. I don't know where to draw the line between freedom and safety. I just know that freedom is a risk we must take.
-
Yes, and there should be federal tax credits to help purchase sniper and assault rifles.
-
Yes. Everyone has a right to "bear arms"
-
The Second Amendment doesn't limit the right to bear arms to any specific type of arms, so it's only common sense that I should be able to carry whatever type of firearm I want, whenever and wherever I want.
-
Well........maybe not all......like I don't think people should have machine guns....but like regular guns are fine....I guess.....
-
Well, as a previous respondent mentions "the constitution is vague". The purpose of being vague was intended for an ever changing society. The bill of rights contains the basic principles and every time amended is based on social changes. An example includes when alcohol was disbanded for the states and then re-entered. As for all firearms to be a right to citizens poses a problem. All states create legislation on fire arm laws as well on the federal level. If an exotic form of weapon was wanted by a citizen most likely there would need to be a process of certification regardless, exotic weaponry is very limited because of safety matters. If a anyone could claim ownership of chemical weaponry, the odds of falling into the wrong hands are quite high. In military combat matters there tends to be some psychiatric expectations. Overall there needs to be limitations set in the constitution through amendments and further legislation to ensure a well functioning government and society.
-
They should not include any firearms for anyone ever.
-
That's lunacy, IMO. If people want to bear military-style weapons, let them be part of a well-regulated militia as mentioned in that Amendment, and be issued an M-1. As long as they show up for Militia Training twice a month.
-
I don't think anything that requires ammunition larger that 30 caliber should available to civilians, and no fully automatic weapons.
-
I would say yes with the understanding that bazookas and rocket launchers aren't firearms per se. . Any pistol, or rifle regardless of how automatic it is should be legal for ownership under the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution were certainly aware that some weapons were more effectual than others but didn't limit the citizens to less effectual weaponry. . The dreaded background check is probably a necessity as there are people who by law cannot own firearms due to prior criminal behavior or psychological conditions. As long as the purpose of the background check is not to prevent legal buyers from obtaining weapons then we can live with it.
-
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." From thefreedictionary.com: infringe vb 1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc.) 2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass I'm no supreme court justice, but I'm pretty sure that means states cannot completely prevent people from buying "arms." Depending on your interpretation of this, it could mean they can't limit it at all, or can restrict various types of arms, as long as they don't restrict it completely. What they can't do, is ban everyone from owning a firearm, or put ridiculously excessive restrictions on ownership like England has.
-
No, it should not. The second ammendment doesn't say firearms, it says "arms," but many states forbid nunchaku, and no one bats an eye. It also mentions a "well regulated militia," but many feel that they can have the firearm, but forget the militia part. - Having said all that, I'm not a firearm expert, but I have no problem with citizens owning weapons for hunting and personal protection. We should not be allowed to have large caliber weapons or anything automatic. Finally, there should be a thourough background check and a registration process. Preferably, this process includes mandatory training.
-
Given the Right-Wing Loonies' professed adherence to the 'original intent' of the Constitution, I say "Yes". There should be NO restrictions on the people's right to bear arms....provide those arms existed in 1789....;-D.. I can't wait for the next blunderbuss convention...;-D... http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of
-
Absolutely. An Armed society is a polite society. After all, look at Iraq.
MrJosh 
Moongrim RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC