Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?

[© tweed]

Suppose it never existed until now.  Would you vote to ratify this?

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.

[Frodo]

Yes, obviously, with the understanding that 'militia' originally encompassed the entire citizenry as opposed to a narrowly defined government-armed and financed organization. 

[GOP = Terrorists]

I don't know... =\

[MasterJedi]

Yes

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Of course.

[Gabu]

Not in its current form.  I personally think it's way too vague regarding what "arms" means (as evidenced by the people who think that people should be able to freely buy nuclear weapons).

It also isn't really correct English.  It needs an "and" in there somewhere.

[J-Mann]

Yes.

[Bdub]

Of course.

[Ebowed]

Hell yeah.

[© tweed]

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

Also, I'm a head-in-the-sand liberal.  I'm naive, and think that if we ban guns, criminals won't get them in their possession either.

[Virginian87]

Yes, obviously

[AkSaber]

Hell yeah.

[Colin]

Hell yeah.

[Inmate Trump]

No.

[Dave from Michigan]

yes

[© tweed]

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

Somebody please explain this!  How is it a right to own handheld atomic bomb detonators?

[Speed of Sound]

Certainly

[jokerman]

Yes, 100%

This has an importance from the small, such as the rights of sportsmen, to the large, the right to self-defense, to the huge, our last check against tyranny from our government.

[nclib]

If it didn't already exist, no.

[ilikeverin]

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

Also, I'm a head-in-the-sand liberal.  I'm naive, and think that if we ban guns, criminals won't get them in their possession either.

^^^^^^

[Ebowed]

Also, I'm a head-in-the-sand liberal.  I'm naive, and think that if we ban guns, criminals won't get them in their possession either.

^^^^^^

Why do you hate freedom?

[© tweed]

Also, I'm a head-in-the-sand liberal.  I'm naive, and think that if we ban guns, criminals won't get them in their possession either.

^^^^^^

Why do you hate freedom?

Why don't you answer this?

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

[Cubby]

When this poll went up there was a stampede of blue avatars who wanted to vote yes because its their party's agenda and they must all play along

[Emsworth]

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

The amendment would not protect the right to bear nuclear weapons. The amendment's text, as well as its context, suggests that it protects weapons of a nature suitable for self-defense. Nuclear weapons do not fall within this category.

[Gabu]

I most definitely would not vote to ratify this.  First of all, 'arms' is too vague.  What about handheld nuclear weapon launchers?  Handheld atomic bomb detonators?

The amendment would not protect the right to bear nuclear weapons. The amendment's text, as well as its context, suggests that it protects weapons of a nature suitable for self-defense. Nuclear weapons do not fall within this category.

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Where does this imply that there is a restriction on what arms people can keep and bear?