which is

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

was written to have "minutemen" to be able to protect themselves against English Supremacy at the time.

Now if this is true why is it so important to bear arms today and why does the 2nd Amendment still stay in tact?

If this is false then we bear arms incase a foreign nation attacks although we have a huge army able to protect us?

Please explain your views why the 2nd Amendment should be eliminated or for that matter as it indicates not to be infringed.

I think the Second Amendment and militias are there to safeguard against threats foreign and domestic, but particularly the later. Although I am not up for a debate on weather or not our government could be overthrown from within and if that could in fact be considered a threat, it seems foolish to me even considering removing the Second Amendment.

when the citizenship gathers weapons and people and regulate themselves they are considered a terrorist group

or a cult

remember waco


and the others

but waco is very on point

to Abolish the 2nd Amendment would Allow for a Tyrannical government and Allow Criminals to Run Wild and Free far Worse than they Already Do! there's Something Called "the Rule of 9's" 99.9% of the Time police Arrive After You've Been Raped, Mugged, Carjacked, Physically Assaulted etc. I Refuse to Be a Victim.

Fact is, we've already been victims of a mugging and a coup de tat.
Just look at what the language of the bailout spells out.

That second amendment is to insure that the people can take their Government back when it becomes an absolute necessity.

Well and considering how do we know they are not domestic terrorists? That is the question. How do we KNOW they are not out to overthrow us or hurt anyone who does not "agree" with them?

are you talking about the federal govt

hehehe

it matters not until they break a law they should be unobstructed

The I carry a gun not to be victim philosophy is not even accurate. Most gun owners are victims just as non gun owners. The gun was unloaded, it happens too fast to get the gun, the gun is taken and used on the victim, etc... and so on, it goes on and on.

The liability of guns far outweighs the usefulness of a gun.

I want all gun owners to go through as rigoruous a test as the police do to carry weapons first and then classes on gun care and markmanship. And then after all of that the gun owner must promise to never, EVER, drink or be under the influence of drugs, illegal or legal and then they only need two guns, one rifle and one hand gun of their choice.

I would then feel okay with gun owners.

So what we let them grow and grow and become stronger and stronger and one day they let us know they are not Pro American and what then we nuc em?

I disagree, Dragoness, with your take on the way guns should be handled. In towns where there is conceal carry laws, crime drops, thats fact.

To do all the things you just assigned, you'd be violating the 2nd amendment, I'm not even a gun owner, myself, but you mentioned that gun owners should have to go through the same things cops do, but when has all that training stopped them from shooting unarmed people or being trigger happy themselves?

As far as letting them grow stronger and stronger, we wouldn't be in the shape we are, if people had gotten past the pathetic tribalisms and started voting as informed people who get their info from more sources than the Tube.

when ever I am Out Somewhere I am Aware of Who is Around Me and if I feel that Somebody Might try Something I'm ready. and the Fact that I am a Brown Belt in Aikido Helps! also in AZ we Have Open Carry Law Meaning you Can Carry your gun on Your Hip which in turn Makes You Less Likely to get Mugged.

Nope...

We put them in a postion where the only way to stay in power is to nuc US.

and hope and pray they ain't crazy enough to do it.

When the whole or most of the whole population of the United States gets their dander up... No army, group of army's, nation or group is stronger.

We will have our country back... As surely as we ARE the sleeping giant. (It's the waking up that seems hard to do).

Or as one of Bin Ladin's group put it the 800 lb gorillia.

You are only talking about small communities where there is little crime anyway, not the big cities.

None of those statistics hold up in big cities.

As for the pathetic tribalisms, gun toking can fall into that catagory also. The usefulness of guns these days is diminished but tribalism makes those who think it gives them power, falsely, continue to stubbornly hold on to it.

For all you Constitutional experts out there.

Full link http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/

District of Columbia v. Heller
Docket: 07-290
Citation: 554 U.S. ___ (2008)
Petitioner: District of Columbia
Respondent: Heller


Case Media

* Oral Argument
* Opinion Announcement
* Docket
* Written Opinion

Abstract
Granted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Argument: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Decision: Thursday, June 26, 2008
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Miscellaneous


Advocates
Walter Dellinger (argued the cause for the Petitioners)
Paul D. Clement (Solicitor General, for the United States as amicus curiae)
Alan Gura (argued the cause for the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

For the first time in seventy years, the Court will hear a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. After the District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked, a group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The federal trial court in Washington D.C. refused to grant the plaintiffs relief, holding that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, such as the National Guard, and not to private gun ownership.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, voting two to one that the Second Amendment does in fact protect private gun owners such as plaintiffs. Petitioners agree with the trial court's decision that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, and further argue that (a) the Second Amendment should not apply to D.C. because it is a federal enclave rather than a state, and (b) that the D.C. legislation merely regulates, rather than prohibits, gun ownership. Respondents, although disagreeing on the merits, have also urged the Court to review the case in order to clearly define the relationship between federal gun control laws and the Second Amendment.

Question

Whether provisions of the D.C. Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate.

I agree with the power of Americans. And we don't need guns to do it either. We are strong force without weapons, we have brains which are much more powerful than any warring tactic or weapon can be.

Thats not true, I came from Wichita, which is a town of about 500,000 people, when the Conceal carry law went into effect, violent crime dropped.

Anything can become a tribal mindset. Football, American Idol, Political parties, actor worship, Trekkies... The difference between the Gun toting crowd, is they're going to be the tip of the spear if the feces hits the oscillator.

Ideals are powerful, but unfortunately, Ideals don't stop bullets and bombs.

ok this was set in place following the revolution, england was beat back, it was set in place so future generations would be able to say "no" to the govt if need be. as opposed to the system in europe at the time, which was do as we say or die. it was a way of assuring our peace and happiness. if enough of the populace is upset and rises up, the govt is failing. they are there to serve us, and if were lynching them theyre not serving us. therefore people. dont let the govt tell you guns are bad, and no one should have thme, because they just want ot be able to do what they want when they want to. dont give up. i refuse to lose my guns or let the govt tell me how to live.