which amendment allows us to bare arms?
444001
The amendment to our long sleves is the one that allows us to bare arms.
1016329
The Second Amendment to the Constitution will never be repealed, but, hypothetically speaking, yes, I will be an outlaw! And I won't be alone. \n\nThis is a timely question.  Try this for starters:\n\nU.N. GUN GRAB: IT'S BACK!\n\nWhile Americans are celebrating Independence Day, bequeathed to them by the armed “embattled farmers” of our founding era, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and company will be plotting how to disarm Americans under the specious pretext of “international law.” \n\n“We must not relax our efforts to combat the scourge of illicit small arms and light weapons, which continue to kill, maim and displace scores of thousands of innocent people every year,” declares Annan, July 11,2005. \n\nThat declaration is now emblazoned like holy writ across the opening Web page of the UN’s 2006 Small Arms Review Conference, scheduled for June 26-July 7 at the UN headquarters in New York City.
208087
Well according to the Federalist Papers an armed citizenry is ideal because keeps the government in check.  The government should be afraid of the citizenry not the other way around.\n\nAccording to the 2nd Amendment the States have the right to impose what controls it sees necessary to protect the citizenry, in fact there were rules that every male HAD to carry a weapon at certain times.\n\nIn my state we have very little crime mainly because it is easy for law abiding citizens to get a permit to carry.  In fact Virgina is now suggesting to women who get personal protection orders (restraining orders) also get pistol permits. \n\nI talked to a Secret Service Agent once where he told where he was being wolf-packed, he pulled his weapon and the gang dispersed.\n\nI had someone intentionally hit my pick-up once.  They got out of their vehicle fairly quickly I didn't have a clue what was going on, thankfully I had my pistol with me, I talked my way out of it.\n\nThe thing is training is key.\n\nThe only gun control I believe in is felons never owning any and where I use two hands\n\nThe thing is I have read reports where the use of knives by criminals are up.  The kids in Florida who killed a homeless man didn't use a firearm they beat him.\n\nIt's not the firearm that's evil, it's people.  And because there are evil people we should be able to defend against being harmed, according to the Declaration of Independence we have the right to life.  Criminals try to violate that right and the only way that it's guareteed is if we fight to protect it
128326
Yes, Americans must be allowed to have guns.  The reason this is a constitutional right is to insure that the government can never subject us to a dictatorship.  As American citizens we have the right to rise up with arms to overthrow any repressive government.  Did you not learn this in school?
157137
you have the right to bear arms or to own weaponry
784004
The 1st amendment gives citizens of the United States a civil rights protection against the federal government.  When a similar statute is part of a State Constitution, it gives freedom from that government as well, and by incorporation all local governments (including school districts).  This speech is limited in that it cannot create a substantial risk of harm.\n\nThe 1st amendment does not apply to family relationships.  For argument's sake, if it did then you would be "The Government" because you legislate laws of your household.  The 1st amendment does not permit citizens to disobey laws.  If one disobeys the laws, they have to pay the consequences.  Sometimes disobeying a law is a sometimes necessary form of speech known as civil disobedience.  A person will get themselves arrested.  For instance, Henry David Thoreau refused to pay his poll tax (taxed to vote) because he was in opposition to slavery and the Mexican American war.  This sort of speech is considered appropriate because it is a protest against a law or establishment that runs contrary to Natural Law.  Natural Law is the law of nature that does not need to be written down for it to be considered.  Our forefathers used this concept as the reasoning to rebel against England.  Most of the concepts spoken of in the Constitution and other Revolutionary documents have to do with this (All Men are Created Equal).\n\nBut your child cannot claim civil disobedience from your chores because such disobedience runs contrary to the Natural Law.  Since the beginning of families, children have been obligated to obey their parents and to "Honor thy Mother and thy Father".  It is part of the custom and heritage of every civilization on the earth and one of the secrets of survival.  We have found evidence of cave men from 20,000 years ago who were old and handicapped yet still looked after by their families.\n\nIn conclusion, you right as a parent to force your child to do chores is part of the Natural Law which no legislature can form laws against.  You would be interested to note that written into every state constitution is a special priviliedge in the assault and battery section.  It permits parents to discipline their children with physical force.  If your child wishes to go by the law, you can point this out.  This priviledge extends until they reach the age of majority which is 18 or 21 in some states.  The law also permits you to evict your child at the age of majority, even if they haven't finished school.\n\nThe Natural Law was explained by Emperor Justinian of the Roman Empire.  You could say, "By the authority of Emperor Justinian, I command you to unload the dishwasher."  It is very difficult to get around that.
1154296
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
820174
That would be the appropriate time for Americans to exercise their right to bear arms.  That is the reason that amendment exists - to allow the citizens of the country the right to take up arms against their government when the government is usurping the rights of its citizens.  I would say the scenario you propose is not likely to happen, but the last six years have gotten us pretty darned close!
1144369
there's good logic.  instead of banning guns let's ban idiots.  it's always a good idea to just scrap a part of the constitution because someone got angry and abused their right to bare arms.  let's suspend that freedom of speech amendment because people say stupid things and hurt other peoples feelings.  i'm abusing alcohal right now should we ban beer ?  the answer is never to suspend the rights of the law abiding but to punish those who violate the law.  no guns should not be banned in America i'm with ted nugent on this one.
1134231
Does the US constitution really give the right for INDIVIDUALS to bear arms, or are only militias given the right to bear arms.
16793
It has to do with the Second Amendment giving ONLY the states and NOT the Federal Government the right to regulate a militia and to the extension of gun ownership.  \n\nAmendment II \n\nA 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.
67177
Amendment II\n\nA 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.
368754
this webpage describes it to great detail\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment
989801
The Constitution of the United States of America, states that the people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It is a right added to be a stop gap measure for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government intrusion.  Due to the fact that at the time the King of England forced the colony folks to house the British soldiers, and were not able to stop them from unreasonable searches or siezures.  Our founding fathers determined that this was a violation of man's basic freedoms.  Not to be usurped by wicked men.  The right to be free from harm or intrusion was based on the unalienable rights granted to mankind by God.  This was codified in the Constitution for our protection and for our benefit.  It is up to us who live by it, to make sure it stays in force!  When we choose to allow it to be usurped we have effctively let the documnent become nothing but words on paper that are useless.
636578
1st Amendment - The limitations on campaign contributions, the prevention of being able to express personal religious beliefs in school, the assault of the ACLU against Christian expression.\n\n2nd Amendment - the numerous gun laws\n\n5th Amendment. Money (property) is being forcibly taken from me and given to other people in the form of Welfare, Social Security, Corporate Welfare, Agricultural Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Where is my just compensation?\n\nThen there are all the intrusions of government into private businesses and lives, regarding quotas and smoking and the myriad other unconstitutional intrusions.\n\nThe ability to grow and smoke marijuana, if I so choose. I don't need a nanny.\n\nThe list is long.
774295
If our defense be the real object of having arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? \n\nPeople who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and republicanism is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.
562800
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. \nThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. \n\nFifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property. \nNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. \n\nSixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused. \nIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.\n\nSeventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. \nIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. \nEighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel or unusual punishment. \nExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \n\nThese are all considered "criminal ammendments".\n\nRegards,\n\nArmus