I think the right to bear arms is necessary.

As a non American (Im English) I find this right to bear arms very strange. In England hand guns are illegal. We have a lot less murders etc. because they are difficult to get hold of. A lot less accidents too. However they are becoming more common amongst criminals. The problem with banning them now in America is that most criminals already have one. So it would take a long time before the benefits of removing them from easy access to come through. also it is so much part of the American culture tha many would resist. A bit like trying to prohibit alcohol in the 1920's. So I am very glad that we do not allow it in England. I believe it does reduce robbings, murders and makes England a safer place to live. (Like all countries we have bad areas too though). But trying to ban them now in USA might be like trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. In the long run a good idea maybe - but the short run would cause so many problems.....

no-body could ever make us give up our guns.

"Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people..." It's clear that we are overrun with guns. Many street gangs in large cities have more firepower than the police. But as much as the over-arming of Americans is a massive problem, as much as our culture is the most violent of any industrialized nation, and as much as the gun lobby arguments are often rooted in bad logic and questionable premises, I don't think we should be removing the right to bear arms. I do think we need much stricter registration, manufacturing, and distribution legislation and enforcement, especially for automatic weapons capable of taking out an entire McDonald's in a few seconds. There are many common psychological and social problems in our culture which create the conditions in which gun violence explodes into killing. Addressing these conditions should be our #1 priority in this area, while managing the manufacture, ownership, and trading of weapons should be #2. A total ban of weapons is simply not feasible politically, and focusing on that approach misidentifies the true source of the violence -- the human mind and heart. If guns are the devil, they're the kind of devil we need to be able to shake hands with: we need to stay alert in his presence, not try to bury him in a shallow hole.

One of the problems with the constitutional right to bear arms is the vast technological change in guns between 1776 and now. A gun in 1776 was a single shot device which took maybe 30 seconds to load, was accurate only at a few paces, cost a lot of money, and could not be carried concealed and still be fired. Such guns were only useful for hunting, in very short range scuffles, and in massed ranks for armies. The writers of the constitution never dreamed of Saturday Night Specials, sniper rifles with sights good at a mile, magnum charges which can go through a wall, and automatics which can fire as fast as you pull the trigger. Which makes the current effect of the Right to Bear Arms very different from what they would have intended. Whether they would have said the same with today's gun technology, no-one can know.

When I look at the purpose for which a gun is manufactured, I see a failure in society's ability to resolve it's issues. This of course goes back hundreds of years. Unfortunately, it probably is a necessity.

People always forget the other segment of that amendment, that indicating the right to bear arms is granted in order to maintain a well regulated militia. It didn't mean you should have a Smith & Wesson in your glove compartment. America will never end its love affair with fire power, but we'll continue being the victims of it.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that most people don't understand the reason for it. The founding fathers recognized that one of the reasons why they were able to successfully rebel against England was because the citizens of the nation were armed. In particular, the militia was primarily made up of individuals who used their own guns to fight. (As a matter of fact, the reason the British went to Concord (thus starting the Revolutionary War) was because specifically to confiscate the weapons and ammo of the militia there.) The fact that the people were armed was instrumental in allowing the colonists to successfully throw off British rule. So, our founders wanted to insure that we had the ability to overthrow the new government if it too ever became tyrannical. Those that want to take away our right to keep and bear arms will often ask how much of a chance we the citizens with our small arms would have against the professional military if rebellion were to become necessary. My reply is that we would stand a much better chance of fighting them if we have the small arms than if we don't. Now in writing this I am not saying that our government is tyrannical and needs to be overthrown. However, there is not guarantee that it won't become so in the future. Additionally, the threat of an armed rebellion can go a long way to keep the government from getting out of hand. Another reason why I don't think that the Second amendment is out dated is because there are still people in our society prey on the innocent. Guns are the great equalizers. A gun can give a woman the ability to defend herself against a potential rapist who is twice her size. So, what do you do when someone is breaking into your house? You call the police, but it is going to take the police 5 minutes or more to get there. In that time, a violent criminal could be in the house, have killed you, gone. So, the police are investigating after the fact when, had the owner been in a position to defend himself, the outcome might have been very different. Cambsman in his defense of more stringent gun control laws admits that they are not stopping the criminals from getting guns. This is something that those on my side have been saying for a long time. If you outlaw guns, then only the criminals will have them. Gun control laws don't stop criminals from getting guns. They just disarm the law abiding citizens thereby depriving them of the ability to defend themselves from the criminals. So, I say that there are still legitimate reasons for the right to keep and bear arms.

As many have said here, the point of the right to bear arms is to prevent the government from becoming tyrranical. There is a point that small arms can do very little against tanks and the like. However, at what point will an american soldier obey the order to gun down his countryman. At some point, there would be desertions in the army, just as there were in cuba's revolution. In addition, a bolt action rifle can still kill very effectively. In a guerrilla war, snipers armed with cheap hunting rifles could wreak havok on the ranks of an army. The enemy that you cannot see, but that still kills you, can easily demoralize a soldier. I can hit a man sized target with my m44 carbine at 300 yards, without much work. It is also small enough that I could easily hide it without any chance of finding it. The other reason small arms are still effective is that they can be used to obtain larger arms. A group of ten gurrillas armed with cheap surplus rifles and molotov cocktails can easily decimate an infantry squad on patrol, and walk out with assault rifles, two machine guns, some grenades, and a few thousand rounds of ammo. The french resistance was able to capture many of the weapons needed by killing soldiers on watch, or by stopping trains. Overall, the goal of the second ammendment is still reasonable. People don't understand the power of a popular rebellion, even if it isn't armed. Hopefully, we will never have a government that we need to overthrow, but when the time comes, america will be able to keep its freedom.

The right to keep and bear arms prevents the government from doing whatever it wants. We may not have the equipment they have but there are 300 million of us and when we have guns they can't force us all into submission should we decide to reject them.

It should be removed from the constitution.This law was made when horse drawn buggies were driving,and the wild lawless west was in it's infancy.We now drive cars and live in the modern age,and the need for guns in everyones hands makes no sense.It is too easy for one to pull a trigger,purposely or accidentally.

I'm Australian and I don't think it is nesessary to bear arms. America should do like Australia and require gun licences.

Yes it is. No it doesn't. No it shouldn't.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Switzerland, interestingly enough, has a civilian marksmanship program where families are issued firearms, and firearms are used daily in town shooting ranges. Swiss banks safe??? you bet... No robberies in years. And if you can show me one country that wants to invade? Can you imagine invading a country only to find yourself boxed in by mountains and facing thousands and thousands of rifle experts???

Like Cambsman said, it would cause such a proublem it just would not be worth it. I for one would rather die than give up my guns and my rights. the same goes for most people I know.

It made sense to everyone at the time it was written. The NRA takes it out of context. Remove it from the constitution? I don't think so. If our forefathers had forseen the kind of guns we have on our streets today, and the crimes that are being committed; would it have been a ban instead?

Gun ownership protects liberty. The presence of a Gun brings peace. When all the tyrants are ousted, when all the criminals behave, when wild beasts no longer see humans as potential food, THEN we will no longer need guns. Firearms are a necessary evil, simply a tool to use in a hostile world. It's up to the hand that holds the gun to decide to use it for good or evil. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

Do you remember the movie the "Planet of the Apes?" When the people in the forbidden zone were worshipping their "God"? A nucelear warhead? I think that they had a right to have it and the apes right to come in there with their black leather suits, rifles and horses. (The Nuke folks probably had never seen an ape or rifle.) Spy versus spy. Great question. I was hoping that I could come up with a kick butt answer. I can't hope to read the other answers.

Yes it is.

You try to take away my guns and I'll shoot you

Yes, it is necessary. No tyranny can exist in a nation of rifleman. Furthermore, taking away the right to bear arms will give criminals a governmental guarantee that their victims are defenseless.

The entire constitution should be revamped to better relect modern times.Especially the 2nd amendment.

I believe that it was, when Americans had to hunt for their food or defend their homes, but now that food is readily available in little air-tight packages at a super market, I don't believe that they are really necessary anymore. However, I do not believe that it should be removed from the constitution for the simple fact that when the constitution was drafted, this amendment was meant to only apply to the armed forces and/or those citizens for whom guns were a necessity.

its still a necessary fact of life. take that red skin football player for example he would of had a fighting chance. its going to get worst before it gets better.

You should stop worrying about means and start worrying about motivation. You are asking good people to suffer in order that bad people ... keep doing what they always do. Wake up! The horse has already bolted. The poor oppressed man didn't have a good mouth but he had good fists so he punched the oppressor. "That's not fair", said the oppressor. The poor oppressed man didn't have good fists but he had a good sword so he stabbed the oppressor. "That's not fair", said the oppressor. The poor oppressed man didn't have a good sword but he had a good gun so he shot the oppressor. "That's not fair", said the oppressor. The poor oppressed man didn't have a good gun but he had several household chemicals and ...

History always repeat its self. Just before the British came at us prerevolutionary war they tried to remove all guns from the population. Most hide their guns. If they had not we wouldn't have been able to kick then off the america's. Then become the USA. The Swiss require its citizens to own and know how to use a firearm thy have very little trouble with home breakin's Get the point. A very old mongolian fable tells of sheep and goats talking about life in the wild and with the farmer. The sheep liked life protected by the farmer the wild goat reminded the sheep of the farmers butcher block and his hunger for roast lamb. what price are you willing to pay for security and what is security. If a disaster happens how lo9ng would it take a policeforce to get to your call when they are completey overwhelmed. Personally I call them if needed but remember how long 10 hyours can be when some horde is breaking down your door?

I believe we should be afforded the privilege to own weapons. I do not think all people who want to own a weapon, SHOULD own a weapon. If you are using a weapon on someone else for protection against the offender, okay. But if you are using the weapon against people for Revenge or some other bull shit, I dont believe that individual should own a weapon. But of course there is no real CONTROL method we could really use because Firearms are so easy to get a hold of. You could get one from your friend, neighbor, coworker, family member. My friends brother was in 8th grade (I was in 7th) when he went to an old couples house and broke into their gun cabinet (glass front) and went out on the canal to shoot himself.

it's much more dangerous to start chopping out parts of the constitution than to own a gun...i would rather live in a free society with guns, than a fascist state that bans them...

<sigh> YES, it's necessary. NO, it's not an anachronism that makes America a more dangerous place. NO, it should NOT be removed from the Constitution. 'nuff said.

while we are at it, should we give the freedom of speech and religion, protection from cruel and unsusual punishment(like this question) or the other rights guarenteed by the constitution.

if you take away one amendmant then what is next? everything is free game. do you even know anything about guns? or are you one of those people who just form an opinion from what is on the news today?

NRA ftw im sorry but im 13 and i just got my first rifle, changed me as a person. Really hits ya hard when you find out someones life's in your hand

Our rights as Americans have been disappearing as the constitution has been basically sh*t on for the last 8 years. I don't know if it's even possible to undo the damage but this would not be a good time to let down our guard. I'm very hopeful for a new era with Obama but I don't know how much he'll be able to help the situation. I believe in the integrity of the constitution. Don't mess with it!

If they change one amendment of the Constitution, then where do we draw the line on changing the entire Constitution? Although you may feel firearms are dangerous and should be outlawed, not having one could result in your demise. Criminals would target cities and municipalites where guns are outlawed, knowing the citizens would be defenseless. And being such "law- abiding" citizens that criminals are, do you think they are going to obey the gun restrictions? Unarmed citizens are easy victims for criminals. You could rely on you local police in the event of a confrontation by a criminal, but response time may be at least a half hour and it is possible that you will have met your fate 29 minutes before they got there. If you have a weapon to defend yourself, you may actually get to see tomorrow. In conclusion, how does one fight terrorist? Harsh words are not acceptable alternatives as the means of eliminating this enemy.

If every single American packed a gun - like in the old Wild West days - there would be less crime. It's the criminals with stolen or smugled guns doing all the damage not the ones who legally own them. If those people knew that when they pulled a gun on someone that person would pull a gun on them as well, I'm sure they'd be much more careful to do it

Do not mess with the Constitution Of The United States. Once you open Pandora's Box, people will attempt to make other changes and we do not need that. The Constitution has worked for America for many, many years and many laws were designed around it. think of the impact, any change would make on America. A right to bear arms is another point of freedom, we love in America. does this make us feel safe? yes. "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT".

It's like the two old addages say... "An armed man in a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Columbine was a gun free zone! Just do some research on violent gun crimes. You will see most happen in "gun free zones"! Even if you say we can't have guns criminals will still get them!They don't care if it is a gun free zone that makes them happy! They know there the only one with a gun! Columbine for example. If one of those teachers would have had there personal LEGAL firearm. How many lives could have been saved?! Oh Please keep your hands off our Constitution!

How far do you think Hitler would have gotten if the German citizenry, and particularly the German Jewish citizenry, had been armed? How far do you think Pol Pot would have gotten if the Cambodian Citizenry had been armed? How far do you think Milosevic would have gotten if the Bosnian citizenry had been armed? How far do you think Idi Amin would have gotten if the Ugandan population had been armed? How far do you think Saddam Hussien would have gotten if the Iraqi population had been armed? If the Hutus had been armed, would there have been genocide in Rwanda? Would their be genocide in Darfur if the citizenry were armed? That is the purpose of the right to bear arms in this country. ANY COUNTRY can elect or be taken over by evil leaders at ANY TIME. Those guns are in random houses because it keeps our elected leaders honest. No one is likely to start sending bands of militia into houses to drag out the occupants and kill them in the middle of the night if that occupant might just have an Uzi in the bedroom.

yes it is study up on why no country wishes to invade us and how other counties fare with out private ownership of firearms! several answers here on ab.

Ah yes comrade, let us dismantle the American bill of rights. We can remove American freedom one step at a time. Perfect Marxist conspiracy. They have used it all over the world successfully. That is one of the main reasons why the 2nd amendment is just as necessary today as it was back then.

Most Americans that I know are ready for another revolution for how business has screwed everything up.