Should the 2nd Amendment have limitations?

This question is aimed at staunch conservatives. While I wholeheartedly believe in the constitution and one's right to bear arms, shouldn't that right only go as far as peaceful arming extends? Is gun control so horribly LIBERAL because we simply wish that guns in the household are not within reach of children, that they are not within reach of those who are legally prohibited to carry one and that they be properly licensed and locked? I am a rare Democrat who believes that if you want a gun, buy a gun, but I do believe that at all costs, we have an OBLIGATION to put safety over preference... So my question remains: should the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms) have limitations?
Answer:
It does have limitations, just not direct ones: the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms (personal property), but the whole rest of the document pounds on and on about the grievous consequences should one choose to take another's right to life. You can own a gun and do whatever you want with it -- so long as "whatever" doesn't involve violating another's rights.

---

I'm a fairly staunch conservative, (although I lean more libertarian than republican) but I would agree that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be seen as some sort of unalterable "law of nature." The founding fathers were wise men, but they couldn't see the future. Limitations on the 2nd amendment are not at all out of line.

---

I think it's pretty clear that ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to own bazookas, flame throwers or grenade launchers.

---

Only if you put limitations on the first. And I belive if i want a m1a1 abrams tank I should be able to have one why not??

---

The second amendment should only have the limits inherently in it. It stands fine just like it is.

Leave our Constitution Alone!

---

The second amendment already has limitations.
One of them is the Brady Bill.
I strongly support the right to bear arms.
A man has to be able to defend his wife and children.

---

The second amendment makes specific reference to a well-regulated militia. I think this authorizes certain limitations provided they don't fundamentally undermine the right to bear arms.

---

No, considering the reason the founding fathers put the 2nd in the bill of rights for a reason. so we could protect our selfs from not only dangers but the Govt also.

With gun ownership also comes reponisbilites. like teaching your children about guns, how they can be dangerous, how they are not toys, and should not be handled without supervison.

I own quite a few Guns, I shoot all of them, I teach my two daughters how to properly handle guns safely. Neither one of my kids ages 16 and 8 have ever messed with any of my firearms with out me being there. Why you may ask? Because guns are not a mystrey to them, they are educated about them. My oldest daughter loves to shoot with me, and the youngest is looking forward to being able to shoot and not just watch.

I dont think we need anymore gun laws, heck if we would just enforce what laws are already on the books we would be fine.

The thing to remember is a firearm is a tool, Guns do not kill people, people kill people.