jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (6 posts)

What arms should our right in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution include?

  1. thegecko profile image79
    thegeckoposted 4 years ago

    What arms should our right in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution include?


  2. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 4 years ago

    The second amendment,  like the first, is not absolute. We have to define what is 'armed', as intended by the second amendment. That right cannot include what is considered military ordinance., not howizers, RPG's etc. Weapons should provide reasonable ability for one to defend him or herself, not be armed to attack the Government as is what is implied by many on the political right.

  3. Angela Blair profile image79
    Angela Blairposted 4 years ago

    Bottom line? Any arms we choose! It doesn't appear specifics enter into this conversation -- arms are arms -- weapons are weapons -- and if any weapon or arms were described in detail in the 2nd Amendment I'm unaware of it. A baseball bat can be considered a weapon/arms if someone uses it to attack someone or defend themselves.

  4. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 4 years ago

    I was writing an answer and got a message from Hub Pages that said:
    Answers that appear in whole or large part on another site are a violation of the HubPages Rules.

    Since this question has been raised in different manners numerous times, I will say that the founding fathers did not envision the weapons we have today and therefore the Supreme Court would be within its scope of authority to issue an opinion stating what type of weapons should fall under the second amendment for this time in our history.

    I hope I do not get a violation for this.

    1. c mark walker profile image59
      c mark walkerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      absolutely,the founding father's couldn't imagine what we have created now and available sometimes without a background check

  5. c mark walker profile image59
    c mark walkerposted 4 years ago

    Certain military weapons shouldn't be available to the pubic.The whole second amendment argument is mute now. "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".
    These are words from the Constitution written in the 1700's..... wake up it's the 21st century;things have changed.We don't have need for 'militias' we have a standing armed force superior to any in the world.Superior to any militia you can muster up with any guns or weapons available at any outlet you have available to you.Ask the Branch Davidian's in Waco Texas how their fight against the federal government went. That may be hard,there's none of them who survived.
    The old idea that we should stock up on weapons to protect ourselves from our government is a ridiculous argument in this modern era of military weaponry. There's a battleship offshore right now miles from your house that can fire on you.There are bombs that can penetrate your underground bunker dropped from a drone plane flying so high it can't be seen,I could go on and on.
    It was decided in the 30's that certain weapons shouldn't be allowed when gangsters were wreaking havoc across the Midwest shooting up neighborhoods as they robbed banks indiscriminately.Before that you could go to your local hardware store and buy a Thompson .45 caliber machine gun.
    Should we be able to buy weapons to protect ourselves surely we need those but clips that hold 60 rounds,no we don't need those.
    .50 and.338 magnum caliber "reach out and touch you from more than a mile away" sniper rifles,no, we don't need those available to lunatics. The record for a sniper shot is 2707 yards that's 1000 yards over a mile. You would never hear the report before you died.