June 27, 2008
-
To Keep and Bear Arms
As I mentioned in my photoblog, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns.
The District of Columbia had a ban on handguns and the Court ruled that ban as unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment reads, “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.” Here is the link: Link
What is interesting is that the ruling was really close with a 5-4 vote.
Do you think it was the intent of those writing the Second Amendment to allow for citizens to have a handgun in their home?
Comments (151)
Oh, yeah…why not?
i know how you stand on this issue dan. i still think civilians should have to right to have guns. you never known when you want to have an uprising against the government, or to protect yourself when policemen take forever to come to your house
Well, I think it was more their intent for people to have a rifle in their home. Handguns weren’t as common in those days.
The intention was for regular people to own guns so if need be they could rise against a corrupt government and over throw it. I don’t like guns, and I don’t own one. Although I want my right to have one. So yay for this ruling!
Most of the constitution is vague, and that’s good. But “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” isn’t. We have “by the people, for the people” and they are talking about all US citizens, but when it comes to this phrase they are only talking about the military? ha.
I would imagine so. But I don’t know for sure. I don’t care to have a gun in my house PERIOD because for one thing I didn’t want my kids getting it thinking it was a play gun when they were growing up, and now with the grandbabies. We had an instance when my youngest was about 6 and we were at my sisters house. Her husband had a gun that he kept in a drawer. My daughter found it and came in the room playing with it and pointed it at my pregneant sister. It scared everyone to death. He kept the gun locked up after that, then eventually quit having a handgun in the house when their kids came along.
They probably weren’t thinking about hand guns at that time, but they did want ordinary citizens to have a gun at their disposal for times of distress.
I keep a gun and I certainly don’t leave it laying about but if children aren’t exposed to them, how do they learn? My father had a gun, we all knew about it but NO ONE ever touched it. My children know I have a gun, but NO ONE ever touches it.
Since I live miles from a town, does that mean I maintain my right to keep a gun in my house, but you that live in cities do not?
The following is from my boyfriend’s blog. I agree with him 1000%
“I don’t want to hear the rhetoric about only the military and police should have guns, when the constitution was written there was NO military other than the leaders, The Continental Army was made up of State Militia’s much like the National Guard is today, the States were responsible for paying for and taking care of the needs of their own state’s soldiers. Not the Federal gooberment. The US was only responsible to the consolidated leadership of the various state militia’s The Constitution could not be talking about Armies there was NO US Army then.
We hear and read so much about guns and gun violence. Gun free zones like VA Tech are killing fields for people that break laws. If people wern’t't being denied their Second Amendment rights at VA Tech, 34 people would not have died. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Love, Joy Peace and pass the Ammunition”
Both my boyfriend and I own handguns. We are responsible gunowners. We believe in background checks and gun registration. When our guns are not in our personal possession they are locked away in a fireproof safe. They also have a cable lock through the magazine and action so they can’t be loaded. The keys for our safes and the cable locks are locked inside another safe.
Considering handguns did not exist in the late 18th century, no. I think the second amendment was written to give people a means of protecting themselves from the government. If the government can take your weapon, they can take anything and everything from you, including your life.
I think that guns for citizens are meant for defence of property and self. Also hunting.
Quite honestly, the whole “We should or should not be able to have guns” issue is kind of boring these days. Perhaps all those that feel the need to own a gun can go shoot the others that need guns and let the rest of the planet get on with living without needing to worry about how much lethal force were are able to use against another human being.
Indeed! Many people who own guns are not violent. My dad keeps handguns, but he only ever shoots them at targets. It’s a hobby, and wants my mom to have a gun in case anything ever happens and he’s not home. I actually would really like to see a statistic on how many guns that are used to comit crimes were legally bought and how many were stollen or come by illegally.
But yes, citizens have the right to bear arms. It’s right in our Constitution. Shame on the lobbyists who want to take that right away. This isn’t communist Russia.
I personally don’t like guns and not planning to own one. However, by banning gun it’s just going to cause more wanting to get their hands on them so they can take advantage of others like selling to the black market for a very high price or threaten others with it getting what they want.
I don’t understand why this is such a big issue. Of course they intended gun ownership to be a citizen’s right. If everyone used common sense, there wouldn’t be a problem. Trying to pass gun control is the same stupidity and lack of common sense identical to those abusing a gun. It will be our nation’s surrender the day we resort to gun control.
I believe that for time period it was written, yes, it was the intent of our forefathers for private citizens to own rifles. People lived spaced out, miles from their neighbors, there wasn’t a police system per say nor the 911 phone system. In todays day and age I do not believe that 2nd amendment really holds water. However, banning guns only makes them taboo, therefore more conveted, thus pushing the sale of gun illegally higher. I do not own a gun, nor my husband. I would not allow one in our home. The number of accidental handgun deaths by children per year is alarming. I do not believe they serve any purpose today other than to wield power.
I think they meant for the militia to be able to bear arms.
@LadyValkyrie37 - So really, why do you own them? The guns are in a fireproof safe…with cable the prevents loading…and the keys to access them are in another safe. Not really accessible incase of a real emergency.
Oh and my boyfriend also has a permit to carry concealed. However, we live in one of the many states in the US where one can legally open carry without a permit. More and more gun enthusiaists and gun rights people are making people more and more aware of the fact that many states in America allow one to openly carry a gun without a permit. Yes, it can be a hassle giving apprehensive and dirty looks by strangers that see your gun. It’s even more of a hassle when a police officer stops you and you have to educate then on your right to openly carry in your state is perfectly legal. However, it is a right and if you should so choose to do so, you have that right. If you are curious as to whether you live in a state where it’s legal to open carry check out the maps at the following websites http://opencarry.org/maps.html
Not sure, to be honest I haven’t read it.
It would be kind of scary though? Knowing, like, a lot of people in your own country own guns, like every day people, who could go nutso and shoot who ever they like? It would be freaky knowing your next door neighbour could just snap and shoot you. Though I suppose that would be a better way to die as opposed to being beaten to death or something.
@wearywalden - The issue is not in the semantics over handguns or rifles; but as you suggest, it is in what the second STANDS for. The second amendment is a control…against a tyrannical government. A gun is representitive of freedom with responsibility. It is the difference between a subject, and a free citizen. Do people die to handgun violence? Sure…but more people die to knife violence and last time I checked we’re not outlawing knives. More people die to CAR ACCIDENTS…we’re not outlawing cars.
Those of you who say no…are sheep.
Yes, the sort of militia utilized by the American colonists during the Revolutionary War and after which the founding fathers modeled their notions of what a militia ought to be was a citizen’s militia in which each member was armed and prepared to assemble from their home at a minute’s notice, hence the term “minutemen”. This would entail participants keeping firearms on hand in their homes and ready to use.
I am licensed to carry concealed in 38 states,so of course I believe all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
@nkleyva - People own guns for many reasons. They don’t own them solely for protection in case of an emergency. My boyfriend and I are gun enthusiaists. We love to collect and trade guns. We love to shoot “paper people.” Many years ago we used to be avid hunters. But with a faster paced lifestyle nowadays we both gave up hunting a long time ago. Now if there was an emergency, this is what I would do. Get my children in a safe place in the home if I could. Call 911. As I’m calling 911, I would get out my gun and ammo. Those who own a gun, keep it in a drawer somewhere in their home, and think they are going to be like the cowboys in the old wild west and wound or kill the bad guy when there’s an emergency in the home… well… in my opinion, they are not a responsible gun owner.
Absolutely. I’d be nothing without my pink Glock.
Yes definitely. It was their way of protection in case of an intruder on their land. I am sure when the ‘menfolk’ left to hunt…the womenfolk knew exactly how to protect themselves while they were alone with the youngins’ in the house.
Well, it certainly wasn’t the intent to allow citizens to have assault rifles in their homes. But a handgun, sure.
@SaadiaOnline - EWWWW! Are you serious? Do you seriously have a PINK gun?! Everytime I’m in Gander Mountain or any other gun store I cringe when I see pink handguns and rifles. They remind me of something that should be in Marilyn Manson’s “Dope Show” music video. You know with the cops in the pink uniforms… LMAO!
@EilisAngelos - Handguns have always been a military weapon in use with both militias and regular forces. In fact, even prior to the 18th century an entire system of battlefield cavalry tactics had been developed around their use. Therefore they should be considered in the same light as long guns for purposes of the Second Amendment.
Arms in the 18th century meant rifles, or more accurately flint-lock muskets. Handguns didn’t exist. The Amendment was there to protect the people from facing a tyrant they couldn’t shake off. Unfortunately, society has changed well beyond the scope of the law and it’s still a necessary item.
yea,,, what was really intended i think was for the people to use those arms agains those that would repress,,,,, like those in office,,,,
i really believe thats over the top,,, a takeover could be accomplished in the polls,,,
after all,,, thats how we were defeated in the first place…..
@LadyValkyrie37 - I’m sorry, but yes, I do have a pink gun. I love it. I understand that it’s not appealing to everyone–but it works for me. I also have a Winchester bolt action rifle if that makes you feel any better, Darling!!!
@UR_MUSE - I thought as much. I was mostly joking. Whenever I picture militia in my mind, it’s always with rifles. Obviously, my mind’s eye is not the most reliable resource in this instance.
@SladeTheGreyFox - Handguns had been in use 300+ years prior to the American Revolution.
I agree with Eilis Angelos, I definitely think rifles where what they intended on people having. and like it said, it was for militia purposes. I do think people should be able to own guns, but not semiautomatic or automatic weapons because their only real purpose is killing a bunch of people. I get the idea of self defense and everything, but I don’t think ANYONE except police should be allowed to carry a gun outside of their own home/property. …unless they are going hunting. lol.
I have a RIGHT to wear sleeveless shirts and no one is going to take that away!!!
@loveandpolitics - The intent was to allow citizens to keep on
hand military grade arms. In this day and age, that would specifically
imply assault weapons.
@nkleyva - our constitution transcends time. the beauty of it is that it can be changed, the genius of it is that it is a very difficult process. meaning the country must stand united behind the change which is being proposed. gun ownership isn’t a privledge its a right. a right afforded by our constitution and now confirmed by our supreme court. we americans are weird about our rights…we love them, flaunt them, boast about them. which is why i believe this is such a hot button issue. it’s one right in which all americans can enjoy and exercise (felons not included) personally. it’s hard for the average american citizen to get the same satisfaction by standing up and fighting for freedom of the press when their vocation is not in that field. we are a young country, and we do not have the same kind and amount of traditions say great britian has. but what few traditions we have, we covet. and gun ownership happens to be one of them, which is why it’s not going to change anytime soon. jmo ~ jack
@UR_MUSE - A flintlock pistol is a far cry from a semi-automatic Glock. But the fact is more to the point that the ordinary citizen formed the backbone of state militias which were used to bolster the ranks of the regular army during time of war. Now, if all your civilians had no guns, then you had no backup to your army plain and simple.
Specifically, no, since handguns as we know them weren’t invented yet. Just dueling pistols (and remember that dueling was legal when the Constitution was written).
But generally speaking, yes, that protects our right to bear arms in the case of handguns. I think in the case of automatic weapons and such, that’s going too far.
The 2nd Amendment of the US constitution was not designed so that billy bob and his friends can go around shooting bambi.
If you want to take part in a recreational past-time switch to bow and arrow. I’m sure it involves a more exciting challenge.
It was made during a time when most citizens were expected to answer the call of war when necessary. Do you honestly expect the same of most people you walk by on the street? Courage and honor are hardly traits of the average American citizen these days. A foreign army hasn’t set foot on American soil in far too long to believe that every citizen should have a gun at the ready and I swear if one ignorant ass mentions “what about arabs?” or “the terrorists” I will tear into your paranoid dumbass.
The regulated army was small enough to the point that it could use help from the average citizen.
Individuals are not militias in themselves. Those 5 supreme court justices practically ignored the first half of the amendment.
If you want to be a part of a milita, join the police.
Guns are a major cause of death and injury in this country. Guns are used more often in cases of murder than they are in self-defense. Take away the guns and maybe you’d give someone’s brother, sister, mother, or father a chance against their killer.
How is this even a question? Yes, it that seems to be the founding father’s intent. The vote was close more because of the public policy of the issue it seems, than if the S.C. justices really thought it would not have been the intent of the writers of the consitution to have the right to own handguns.
YES!
Is your society so lawless that people need to have firearms? To hell in a handcart with the lot of you! I abhor guns.
@SilentWolf86 -
Take away the guns, and you give the criminals with illegal handguns a monopoly on the violence you’re talking about. Guns are like drugs, you can’t just wish them away, no matter how much you dislike them.
@xshybiscotsguyx - Is your society so lawless that people need to have firearms?
No. But the right to them is nice.
I abhor guns.
That’s awsome! Good for you!
@Evowookiee - thank you. very well put.
Yes, I do. The authors of the constitution knew first-hand how useful personal arms could be in a battle against tyranny.
Given this precedent, the states aren’t going to be permitted to ban guns, either, because the 14th amendment applied the BoR to the states, too.
How is that interesting? You have 4 justices leaning right and 4 leaning left. Then you have a tie breaker who leans right. Of course he is going to back gun rights.
As for my opinion, I really think that we should be allowed to have concealed hand guns, but those who commit crimes with guns should be punished more harshly. Restrictions on who can apply and how it is regulated also needs to be looked at.
That’s kind of interesting language. Unlike the “congress shall make no law” language of the first amendment, the 2nd says the right shall not be infringed, also linking the right to a need for a militia (or one that is “well regulated”).
So, seems to me there is room to interpret this as allowing regulation, or even to say that back then maybe this was necessary because the army didn’t provide guns, I don’t know.
Or, the right of the people to have their own guns could have been the means of “regulating” the militia, in other words keeping them from getting too powerful, which isn’t a real bad idea, Waco notwithstanding..
So it’s hard to say for sure, but it would seem to me that an outright ban on guns would be unconstitutional. As to whether the amendment is outdated, if so it would have to be removed by the mechanisms provided under the constitution for amending the constitution.
Which part of duh . . .
@UR_MUSE - It was a question, not a criticism. Maybe you should move huh?
@SilentWolf86 - You’re right. The intent of the second amendment has nothing to do with recreational hunting, because the founders never foresaw that there would be an issue with such practices.
Honestly, though, you’re overlooking the principle “war” that required citizens to fight on their own soil – the revolutionary war. The founders were well aware that the only protection the populace could have against another tyrannical distant power would be the power to have guns in their own homes, so if “when in the course of human events” they decided to take back their liberty, they could do so without being absolutely slaughtered. The Brits weren’t considered foreign, since most of the colonists were still English citizens.
One would hope that in modern times, a bloody revolution would not be required to remove the hand of a despotic government, but it’s more than probable, and the founders instilled the 2nd amendment for this particular reason.
Why don’t you invent a time machine, and tell the new Americans who fought for independence that they can join the British army if they want guns? I’d imagine they wouldn’t be too happy with you.
And just because something is dangerous does NOT mean that the government has the right to prohibit its use. Governments DO have the right to prohibit use of things when they are violating the rights of others (i.e., dangerous to non-consenting victims). However, empirical evidence shows that keeping guns in the hands of the law-abiding, instead of giving the criminals a monopoly on guns that the gov. can’t even trace, will reduce violent crimes and home invasions.
I believe that they intended for citizens to own guns, not just the militia, because that could become just as corrupt as a government and there would be the need for private citizens to rise up against them as well as protect themselves.
I am a gun owner. I do not have conceal/carry because.. well.. i’m lazy. There have been several instances in my adult life that having a gun with me has saved me from harm in a way that nothing else would have.
@xshybiscotsguyx - I’m planning to. I’m working hard and saving every penny so that I can get out of here, hopefully by this fall.
@huginn - It ain’t the ‘Wild West’ anymore (or is it?). Let’s just settle on ‘Cultural Differences’ ok? “Over my dead body” as Chuck Heston said. Well face it, he’s worm food now!
screw guns, legalize pot
@mejicojohn - Even if a majority of the populace was against the current form of government, the government would not necessarily reform to meet the standards of the populace without being pushed. For instance, almost everyone is against secrecy and conspiracy within the government. Almost everyone is against corporate lobbyists. Almost everyone is against siphoning off money from the taxpayers. However, these things still happen regularly. Polls are not enough. A vote is not enough, when voting between the lesser of two evils. There may be a situation in which we need guns to reject the tyranny of the bloated federal government.
@CanadianConspiracy - My car is my property, so I should be permitted to carry a gun in my car, yes?
@UR_MUSE - Good luck m8. I know that in an ideal world u shouldn’t have to, but we ain’t got utopia yet.
@SaadiaOnline - WOW! Are you being serious, because if you are…I want one!
The exact type of weapon doesn’t really matter. It’s the principle of the thing. “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them…” Richard Henry Lee
@nkleyva - If a robber is holding a gun to my head, I won’t be able to call 911, but I might be able to pull out a gun of my own and shoot him first. I understand your argument, but urbanization and technological advances have not outdated guns as self-defense.
@LadyValkyrie37 - I agree, though if the VA Tech shooting had occurred at a private university (on private property), I would think that the university should still have the right to ban guns.
And what use is your gun if you can’t get to it in a hurry?
@UnknownShopaholic - The theory is that if you have a gun, too, you can shoot a violent psychopath before he gets the chance to shoot you. Do you mean that you haven’t read the opinion, or that you haven’t read the second amendment?
@Evowookiee - I agree with you on principle, but you fail to show why people who say no would be sheep. Prove that, and I’ll have absolutely no problem with anything you said.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - hahahaha,,, i agree,,, because of the initials tos tho ill always place some sort of disclaimer,,,,,
theres another way to fight back,,, which i do in my everyday life,,, laws i feel are wrong, i ignore…totally,,,,
yea im caught every so often, yea,,, they try to fine me,,,, no,, i dont pay any fines of any kind,,,, i tell that straight to the judges face.
(oh,,, they will put you in jail),,, not necessarily,,, that costs them,, not you,,, never let them see you sweat,,,, ive never spunt a day,,, or an hour,,, in jail,,,, the judge knows hes/shes up against a brick wall,,,,
if everyone did as i do,,,,they would back off the attempt,,, even the attempt costs them money,,,,
the cop wasted government money spending time, paper and ink writing the infraction up,,,, the judge wasted government money trying to get money out of me,,, which will not happen.
oh,,, if the violation goes to warrant,,,, just never let them catch you in your car alone,,,, then they have your car as a bargaining tool,,,, bargaining tool equals money for them,,, and as soon as you walk into the courthouse and tell the clerk your there to try to settle this,,, the warrant is taken off..
altho i live in mexico,,, and travel to the us frequently,,, i have never applied for a passport,,, nor will i,,,,
unless mexico says i need one,,,, then i will,,,, to travel back into my own country tho??? hahahahahahaha
@la_faerie_joyeuse - regarding your response to silent wolf…excellent!
If they want to join the militia then they are welcome to have guns.
Also, I’ve never heard they “guns don’t kill people” argument from someone who’s been shot.
Go figure.
@sammjane - But a “militia” is made up of ordniary citizens. A militia kept by ordinary people is different from the organized military.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - as for the proof of why people who say no will be sheep…
I misread what I was saying ‘no’ about. I absolutely believe that Americans should have the right to bare arms, and that includes handguns. The question I thought I was saying no to was “Should the 2nd Amendment apply to handguns.” Yes, it should…absolutely.
As for the sheep thing- anyone who will give up his right to defend himself, anyone who will let another force do their thinking because they somehow think that the violent minority cares what the law says…is a sheep. They put themselves to pasture, consuming without a thought as to what they can do to secure their own saftey.
I have this theory that any country that bans their citizens the right to own their own protection…owns everything else.
I totally believe in the right to have and bear arms. Banning them doesn’t stop those who will abuse them, but allowing them allows those who will not abuse them to at least have the option to defend themselves when necessary. Do I have/own a gun? No. Do I know how to shoot one? Most certainly. (Not too bad a shot, either, if I do say so myself… with a police-issue 45, too!)
Yes.
@KechiNeko244 - Yes. I know a militia is amde up of ordinary citizens, so I think only the citizens in the militia should be able to have guns. I don’t know how they’re keep track of that though. I also think this whole debate is old at this point though. These are topics that no matter what decision is made, some people are going to be pissed off.
Look, here’s how it works. If you don’t like the Second Amendment (as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday), then start the process of amending the U.S. Constitution so that it says what you think it should say. It’s that simple.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - I haven’t read the second amendment, or any other of the amendments as a matter of fact (I shall assume there is more than 2? Might have to google it one time).
I read somewhere that all 9 judges believed that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. all 9 of the judges feel that states and cities should be able to make reasonable restrictions on who can have guns. what made it a 5/4 decision was what “reasonable restrictions” means.
But to answer your question. I feel that if you have been taking any medications or seen a doctor for a mental illness condition within the last 5 years. or you have been convicted of a violent crime within the last 10 years. Then you should not own guns. If you have not done the previous then you can have guns.
@la_faerie_joyeuse - What use is my gun if I can’t get to it in a hurry? Do you actually hear yourself?! I have 3 children (teenagers) in my home. I am NOT going to keep my guns and ammo out in the open or in drawers where they are of easy access to my children or to their friends that come over to my home. No keeping my guns in a safe, and keeping those safe keys in another safe is not easy access in case of an emergency such as a burglary, home invasion, ect. However, I would rather be a responsible gun owner and keep my guns and ammo away from my children and their friends than to keep a gun in plain site in an offhand chance that my home may or may not be invaded or burglarized. You should seriously rethink your statment and actually think what it means to be a responsible gun owner. Also what use is my gun?! Do you actually believe that all gun owners own them solely for the purpose of protecting themselves? You are sorely mistaken. There are many reasons why people own guns. Believe it or not, some gun collectors own certain guns merely for their collectibility and never fire a single bullet out of them.
@UR_MUSE - You are absolutely right.
Without a doubt. But keep in mind too, that bearing arms is not limited to firearms. We have a right to protect our own families by whatever means come to us.
@SilentWolf86 - Guns are NOT, I repeat, NOT a major cause of death and injury in this country. People who are greedy, hateful, spitful, vindictive, sick in the mind, ect. are the ones who are the major cause of death and injury in this country. If guns didn’t exist those same people would still kill and injure others. They would use whatever other tool that was available. Hell, in biblical times there was a hell of a lot of stoning going on for things that we don’t think twice about today. Should people back then banned rocks? LMAO Of course not! It’s the state of one’s heart and mind that has the potential to cause injury or death upon another human being. The tool is NOT the issue. Oh by the way, I remember listening to Glenn Beck the other day. He pointed out that swimming pools cause more injury and death than guns. Should be ban pools? Cigarettes cause more injury and death than gun. Should we ban cigarettes?
@SaadiaOnline - I love your pink Glock!!
Yes.
Although I’m sure that when it was written, that it only applied to white, land-owning men.
@UnknownShopaholic - There are actually nearly 30 amendments. I would say I’m surprised you never went over this in school, but I know too much about our public school system for that. I’d recommend you read at least the first ten (the “Bill of Rights”), but they’re all short, so it shouldn’t take long.
@Evowookiee - Okay, cool.
@mejicojohn - I admire your courage to be able to do that, but it simply wouldn’t work where I live, particularly if I was trying to do it alone. Trust me, I’ve tried. Regardless, it doesn’t cost them anything to jail me – it costs me, because I’m the one who paid those taxes to them in the first place. Find me one politician or government employee who is genuinely concerned about how he spends my money (besides Ron Paul), and I’ll concede.
remember the michigan militia? what happened to them?
@LadyValkyrie37 - Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you don’t have the right to do whatever you want with it. That said, I don’t think you should imply that others are irresponsible gun owners if they keep their gun in a bedside drawer, particularly if the drawer has a lock on it. I know people who collect guns, so I recognize that this is a valid alternative to using them, but I don’t think this was what was intended specifically by the second amendment, which is what the question was about.
@buddly47 - I know, Darling. It kicks ass–literally!!!
different time socially when that was written and i think the idea that the constitution must remain stagnated in the past is fallacious. which means i tend to think that may be the express intent of the amendment but that examining it in the realm of the modern might be wise, although unlikely…
The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. It does not say the government can’t specify what kinds of arms, unless I am mistaken. After all, I don’t see too many people complaining that the average citizen can’t legally own a machine gun. This seems to be a discussion about a particular weapon, not all weapons. If handguns are illegal, it’s not a violation of the 2nd amendment. If all weapons become illegal, then it is.
Yup!
@EccentricSiren - The second amendment does not “give” citizens ANYTHING! It recognizes a pre-existing right and tells the US government it dare never take that natural right away.
Yes I do believe they wanted those of us who want guns to have guns.
well if people want guns, give them guns. people need to shoot things like targets, animals, and siblings.
but i think the second amendment was originally directed at the militia
Yes, yes and again YES. Gun ownership is a right that every American has…unless they have for fitted that right by being a convicted felon. Taking guns away from good, honest, law-abiding people only makes it easier for criminals to attack those people. I am SO GLAD that the Supreme Court gave constitutional rights back to citizens of Washington D.C.
@SaadiaOnline - That is AWESOME. My boyfriend is a Glock owner, and he’s strongly encouraging me to get one. I had joked around before that if I got one, it had to be pink.
It’s so cool that you already have a pink one!! Did you get it customized after you bought it, or did it come that way?
It was their intent that the country have right to a militia in times of war.
@NightCometh - My husband bought it for me that way, Girly. I think you should get one, too. Keep me posted!
Yes, the same idea.
I can see why a person would want to have a gun with them. But I’m also convinced there are serial killers outside my house.
I absolutely think it was the intent. However, they were thinking more like a musket. They didn’t foresee what we have now. I’m really torn about the gun issue. I don’t like the idea of dangerous things lying around for people to be stupid with, (thought I do oppose paranoid reactions like shutting off all the hot water in the house so that a kid can’t burn themselves… shit happens) and I don’t like that guns are so easy to fingerprint, yet that there’s a ton of opposition to keeping ballistics records, but I also see the value of having a gun and am thinking of at least learning to use a shotgun myself.
People who use guns to commit crimes are CRIMINALS. Criminals break laws and stronger gun laws are only going to deter people who want guns for protection. Even besides that, this part of the constitution was in case the government went crazy and we needed to protect ourselves from the government and up rise against them.
In my opinion, this shouldn’t even be a question. Of course we should be allowed to own guns, and i don’t see how owning a hand gun is any different from a rifle in the respect that it can still be used as a protection.
@Pisciculus “this shouldn’t even be a question.” David agrees…
Could be worse. Instead of “keep and bear arms”, the ruling could have been, “keep and arm bears.”
http://www.pbs.org/inthemix/shows/show_gun_violence.html 
—-
—————– Live By The Gun, Die By The Gun ———————
In Los Angeles, California, every week 17 kids under 20 are shot dead.
The “Brady Law” imposes a 5 day waiting period before someone can buy a handgun, so that a background check can be done.
If you carry a gun, you’re twice as likely to become the victim of guns.
One in eight teens reports carrying a weapon for protection; in at-risk neighborhoods, that number skyrockets to two in five.
If current trends continue, firearms will surpass cars as the #1 cause of injury-related death in the U.S. by the year 2003.
“IT’S NOT ME” J
http://www.pbs.org/inthemix/shows/show_gun_violence2.html
@whataboutbahb - So your argument is just because something is widespread that there should be no attempt to counter it? By that logic then all the ills and wrongs in this society should not even be fought. Lets just allow disorder and chaos destroy the country just because its not worth it. I would rather make an attempt to make things right with the possibility of failure than give up completely.
Take away guns from the public and its a guarantee that deaths will drop significantly. As for the monopoly, I would imagine establishing a general anti-gun law would make it far easier to prosecute and come after gangs or crime organizations.
Absolutely! Just because they had rifles instead of handguns doesn’t mean that the concept is any different. And I don’t think that “the right to bear arms” is limited to guns, though that is the particular tool people tend to focus on.
I’ve looked at statistics (National Safety Council, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc.) and the claims of those who support gun bans just don’t add up to the statistics. Besides the fact that deaths from firearms, both intentional and accidental, are extremely low compared to vehicular deaths, medical complications, poisoning, falling, drowning, etc., many numbers for homicides with guns INCLUDE self-defense killings and cases where the police were forced to take down a criminal. The FBI’s website has fact sheets that separate these kinds of homicides.
You hear a lot of alarming statistics involving children and guns. But are they true? In 2004, there were only 649 accidental firearm deaths, 63 of which were children (CDC). We shouldn’t be wasting our time telling kids “guns are evil” which besides being a lie, leaves them as a liability to hurt themselves or others if they come across a gun. Instead they should be learning proper gun safety. And that doesn’t mean you have to own a gun or keep one in your house. But at the very least, everyone should know gun safety in case they ever encounter a situation with a gun.
Check the stats on the other causes of accidental deaths (vehicles, poison, drowning, etc.) and you’ll be wondering why all these strict laws got passed on guns when the real causes of most accidental deaths for children have been ignored. The answer to that is simple. A populace that is unarmed can be controlled by the government. And there are politicians and lawmakers who would like to see the American people in that position.
The stats also show that crime has decreased as gun ownership has increased. Which makes sense…if you were a criminal, wouldn’t you think twice before entering a home if you had to consider that you could get shot?
Where I live, though far from the worst area in town, is a place that I would definitely want my right to protect myself and my family allowed. I’ve had one break-in, and multiple attempts while I was home. We have been very lucky so far that they left when I told them I was calling the cops. But what happens if my verbal threat isn’t enough to stop them? My husband is in Iraq, I’m pregnant and alone with a toddler. For me, I would have peace of mind in keeping a gun in my home. It’s not like it would be left out where my toddler could grab it, but I would keep it locked somewhere that wouldn’t take much time for me to get to it. My father, a cop in this area agrees with me. Often, waiting five minutes for the police to arrive is just too late. So I’m saving for a shotgun. It’s more intimidating than a handgun and will deter a criminal from proceeding any further almost 100% of the time. Owning a gun that can provide me protection without ever having to fire it will make me quite happy.
(Sorry for the long rant, Dan
Guess you found my soft spot issue 
)
I believe the intent of the second amendment was to allow the citizens a means of protecting themselves from other citizens, the government and to allow them to work together to protect the nation in event of attack.
That said, I think it won’t be long before an armed revolution to overthrow the government will be necessary.
@DAVERAVEdotNET - You really need to check your stats…
In the CDC’s 2004 stats, firearms dropped below even accidental poisoning. And vehicles still reign supreme as the number one killer/injurer.
I think they meant for the militia to be able to bear arms.
To those on here who mention the frightening number of children killed every year, I only have this to say. Before you go off the deep end against guns please do some research. Don’t take my word for it but if you get the facts for yourself instead of only listening to mainstream liberal media you will see that more kids are killed every year in America by swimming pools than by guns. Oops, guess we better check our constitutional right to backyard swimming parties huh?
@firetyger - Well put, but I’d like to point out, in response to you and some other people who posted — the purpose of the 2nd amendment is NOT to ensure that citizens can protect themselves from other citizens who are criminals.
In fact, it is most of the time illegal to use force to kill someone who is (or may be) threatening you, with the only exception when you were facing imminent death or serious injury and there were no other options.
The thing is — to be able to enjoy civilized life, to be able to live and work without the constant fear of someone hurting us or taking away our stuff by force, we *willingly* agree to let the government have the monopoly on the use of force. Namely, we agree that the only people who are allowed to use force are the army (protecting us against outside violence) and the police (protecting us against inside violence).
In return, the government agrees (well, agreed) to abide by the American Constitution – the greatest document ever written. For the first time there was a document, whose sole purpose was to protect a man from his government. The Constitution limits what the government is allowed to do to us, it is a contract for which we paid.
Now, when two people have willingly signed a contract, they have to make sure somehow that none cheats, or breaks it. When a contract is signed by Man and his Government, if a man breaks that contract, the government has plenty of guns to punish him. But what if the Government breaks that contract? The 2nd amendment gives the man a gun so he could protect himself from an unconstitutional government , NOT from criminals.
Annabel
The 2nd Amendment isn’t written very well… but I do think the intent was for everyone in America to retain the right to bear arms.
But I don’t agree with concealed weapons. I don’t see that right guaranteed.
Yes!
@EilisAngelos - what you said.
The government should be afraid of it’s citizens.
We should have the means to revolt if the government becomes too oppressive.
Ya dig?
the right to own guns is a delicate issue. because the second amendment states that “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” clearly it states that the purpose of the right to bear arm is to form and maintain a well regulated militia. militias are virtually extinct. we have police and the military who are the best of the best and will fight to uphold the constitution and the freedom that stems from it. therefore in the this time of history second amendment can be outdated. BUT you know what i don’t care. many other countries have freedom of speech, freedom of whatever. but we are the only country that guarantees its citizens to bear arms. that is a beautiful and unique part of our constitution. the second amendment gives the power to the people.
justice kennedy switched sides and voted for the right to own a gun. the same justice who gave rights of life to a rapist. the same justice who bestowed the rights to terrorists. he understood that the right to own gun is not liberal or conservative but AMERICAN. if you don’t want or like guns then do not own them. it is a right to own. if you don’t want to vote you don’t have to. it is a right to vote.
many have concerns about what type of guns a person should be allowed to own. the constitution does not specify the type of guns. hand guns were not invented when constitution was drafted so it should be excluded? internet was not invented when it was drafted so the government should be allowed to censor it? or the radio? the tv? the ambiguity of the constitution is what makes it so beautiful. it does its job without being the size of our tax code.
many also fear a vigilante citizen who takes law upon his hands or a crazed citizen who shoots everyone. if we are afraid of that then we should ban matches, bat, car,knife, fork, rope, and many items that can be used to commit crimes. just as the mentioned items can be misused to pervert its intended use it can be used to perform beautifully. the constitution states that it can not be infringed up on. a gun in the right hand is a wonderful thing. many incite the VA TECH incident. a gun in wrong hands is well bad. but atrocities committed with gun are majority gang members. did not follow regulations. was illegally purchased. or kept improperly. guns used by cho in va tech were said to have been purchased legally, but the proper background check should have revealed concerns and prevented him from purchasing them. everyone should be educated about gun safety. everyone who drives is educated about the vehicle.
personally i don’t like guns. i am afraid to hold a gun. i choose not to own a gun but i will not infringe upon your right to own a gun. afterall your gun could save me in the future. it was a great day and a great moment in the land of the free. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
@Annabel_Kean - I agree that the second Amendment most certainly does apply to citizens having the right to protect themselves against an unconstitutional government.
However, I disagree that the second Amendment does not apply to citizens protecting themselves against those who would harm them or their property. Because, the police are not obligated to protect individuals…only the public in general. If you call the police because someone breaks into your home, and then they don’t show up and you end up getting raped, robbed, or worse…they cannot be held responsible.
One example is Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. A woman was being attacked by intruders and her roommates called the police many times, who said they were coming. Thirty minutes later, the woman stopped screaming and her friends assumed that the police had arrived. They went downstairs to where their friend was only to find the intruders still there. “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” All three of the women sued the police department. The court ruling? The court stated “[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or
other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”
And there are many other such cases with the same results. If the police don’t show up, you’re on your own and you can’t blame the police.
I don’t think the Founders intended for Americans to have to depend solely on the government for their protection. In fact, a lot of what they did was setting us up for a government that wasn’t supposed to have a lot of power or control, or “babysit” us. More power to the states and the people, less to the government. And that would fit in with citizens having the right to bear arms against both a tyrannical government and those who would harm them.
Yes.
Well, it was to allow citizens to be able to protect themselves. And some people do that by having handguns in their homes. Incidentally, I’ve never owned a gun and don’t really have plans to ever buy one. But I feel very strongly that it is an American citizen’s right to own one, if they want to.
Absolutely.
@firetyger -
The case you bring up is definitely horrendous, and probably isn’t out of the ordinary. While it’s unfortunate that the State did such a bad job in protecting its citizens (and I believe the Court’s decision was wrong, and immoral, and unfitting of good government), I still think that the intent of the amendment is to protect the man from the government, not to protect the man from criminals.
In the case you are describing, the government acted as criminals — namely, they stole that woman’s tax money without providing what they stepped up to provide. And then they argued that they never intended to provide it, by saying that they were busy protecting the mysterious “public at large” (what does that mean, anyway? do they mean those OTHER people who weren’t at the time getting raped?) I think you’d be hard pressed to find *anybody* who wouldn’t think that that court ruling was bogus — a clear case of immoral government.
In this case, if she shot her attacker, I would not consider what she did wrong — but that’s because she would be, at the same time, foregoing her rights and responsibilities of a citizen altogether, and focusing on her rights as a human being. If that were still possible in this country, I’d say her next logical step would be to gather her friends and their guns and go to the government to claim their taxes back. But that’s just in my little libertarian fantasy-land.
Now, I understand that a great many places in the US have admirable police departments, full of brave men who become policemen so they could help people just like that woman you were describing. The problem is, much of that police force is busy enforcing an overwhelming variety of laws and regulations, ranging from irrelevant to simply silly.
A lot of that force is being wasted fighting a war on drugs — a useless, expensive and dangerous war, intended to save us from our own stupidity. Yet another part of it is being wasted fighting a war on improper parking, uncastrated dogs, improperly trimmed hedges, people driving without seatbelts, people biking without helmets, women breastfeeding in public, etc. etc..
I am sure that if the police concentrated their efforts on one thing and one thing only — protecting innocent people and their property from violence and fraud — we’d be (and feel) a great deal safer, and there would be little need for one to rely on a gun to protect oneself.
To summarize — if you have real fears about someone hurting you and the police not being there to help, so much so that you think you may want to use your gun for it — your government is NOT doing its job.
@LadyValkyrie37 - 1. Glenn beck is an idiot. 2. There is no cure for the failings of man but theres no reason why we should make it easier for horrible tragedies to happen.
Think of it this way. Would you rather people fight with swords and knives or nukes and chemical weapons? I know its an exaggerated comparison but there is a significant difference in the POTENTIAL for the loss of life. People die easily when guns are around. It only takes a second. Limiting our availability to less lethal weapons gives innocents a chance to fight back and violent individuals to rethink what they are doing.
Would Columbine have happened if those two individuals didn’t feel empowered by the weapons they used?
@LadyValkyrie37 - The only legitimate argument that individual gun owners have is the self-defense reason. If being a “responsible gun owner” means practically disabling quick access to said self-defense when a threat comes along then there is no point in having it.
There are plenty of alternatives in hunting.
There are plenty of other hobbies instead of collecting weapons made for killing.
The Case Against the “Self-Defense” argument.
Justifiable homicide
A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald
Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of
these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the
743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during
an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts
to be justified (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific
American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48). The evidence revealed in the Kellermann
study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were
24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable
homicides by civilians using handguns. (FBI, Crime in the United States:
Uniform Crime Reports 1994, 1995).
Its only presents an opportunity for someone to lose their cool and do something reckless.
@SilentWolf86 - You may think Glenn Beck’s an idiot, but he has a very good point. Hell you are proving his point. You are rambling on about the comparisons like swords/knives verses nukes/chemical weapons, yet you still haven’t acknowledged what I’ve stated about all the other things that kill people on a more massive scale than guns… cigarettes, swimming pools. Someone else even mentioned automobiles as a major source, much larger than guns, of injury and death. Since these things create so very much injury and death why aren’t you on board to ban these things as you are guns? Shall we scour the Earth and rid it of everything that causes injury and death? Or how about we look at this term called accountability. Guns, cigarettes, swimming pools, automobiles, swords, knives, nukes, chemical weapons, ect. are not to blame for injury or death… those people who are using these things are to blame. Banning these things will not stop these people from finding a way to injure themselves, others around them, or even cause death. And please spare me the rhetoric about how limiting the availability of less lethal weapons gives innocents a fighting chance and violent individuals to rethink what they are doing. That is nothing but BS! A human being is capable of injuring and killing another human being with their bare hands. With adrenaline and rage flowing it tends to make a person even stronger. So spare me, ok? I understand you don’t like guns. I do. I understand you wish all guns were banned and we all lived in some sort of utopia where nothing bad ever happened all because we banned guns. I live in reality, where I know at their very core humans have a very dark and evil side that can come out and injure and kill with or without a gun in a blink of an eye.
Does anyone remember Kennesaw, Georgia? Kennesaw made it mandatory for every head of the household own a firearm and ammo back in 1982. Since then the population went from 5,000 to over 30,000. Since then the crime rate has dropped almost 90%. Guns do NOT create more violence, injury, and death.
Yes because back in that day and time most guns were used privately more for hunting food for their families and protection from outlaws not for knocking over the corner store or shutting up that bitch of a wife/ass of a husband once and for all. They were tools more then weapons.
But I will be damned if my right to keep and bear arms got taken away just so some idiot kick in my door with their illegal gun and kill us all without having the RIGHT to have a gun to defend myself.
However I do not nor care to own one at this time but should I change my mind then I want to keep that right.
no. no. no. never.
@Annabel_Kean - If I’m not mistaken, police forces did not even exist in America until the mid-1800′s. The first being established in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Before that time, any such force was frowned upon as being a “standing army.” And once the police force was established, “Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens’ right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.” (Kasler, 1992)
I do strongly believe that the Second Amendment was the founders’ reiterated belief that individuals do have a right to bear arms in self-defense against both government and those who would harm them.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
“[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.”
– William Grayson’s letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”– Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no
power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible
implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”– Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
Yes, we do have the military and police to help protect us, in general. I respect both of those institutions immensely for the services they help provide. Like I said, my father is a cop and my husband is a soldier. I believe that they do society much good and are indispensable. But we cannot solely rely on the military or the police to protect us…the courts rule that they are not responsible for individual citizens. Based on the quotes above and other writings about and from the founding fathers, I think that they meant for us to not abdicate our responsibility for our own safety, regardless of whether or not we had a military. To make sure we weren’t denied the means to do that, they wrote the Second Amendment.
If only we lived in a perfect world…none of it would be necessary. But we don’t. And I would not hand over my right to defend myself, my family, or my property to someone who is not even obligated to help me.
@SilentWolf86 - ”So your argument is just because something is widespread that there should be no attempt to counter it?”
No, not at all. The main arguement to make is that it is a constituional right granted to us. The other arguement I was making was a praticality arguement. Banning guns won’t get rid of guns, plain and simple, no matter how you feel about guns. All it will do is create a more powerful blackmarket for them. And with that blackmarket you accomplish the worst thing possible; now the majority of the law-abiding citizens do not have guns, while a lot of criminals do. So how does that work to better solve the ills of society?
“Take away guns from the public and its a guarantee that deaths will drop significantly.”
Incorrect. The fact that you even include the word guarantee is ridiculous. There are so many studies that point to the exact opposite conclusion.
@SilentWolf86 - ”Would Columbine have happened if those two individuals didn’t feel empowered by the weapons they used?”
Um, the Columbine weapon’s were attained illegally.
I mean, cmon, do you really think gun’s will disappear because harsher laws are enacted? Think of any illegal substance right now. How hard is it to get them if you really want them? Even if guns were banned on a national level, people who want to use guns to kill other people can get their hands on such guns if they really want to. And then were back to the problem I mentioned in past comments.
@DAVERAVEdotNET - “If current trends continue, firearms will surpass cars as the #1 cause of injury-related death in the U.S. by the year 2003.”
And just think, the Constitution says nothing about the right to own and drive a lethal automobile. Then again, I’m not familiar with any communities where the ownership or use of automobiles has been banned — not even in Amish country.
Yes.
back in the day, the militia was called up at any time. They depended upon an armed civilian force. Where else would they keep their gun? In the barn? And they didn’t have handguns then. Perhaps we should all have muskets, as they did.
The Constitution was more to put limits on the government than on the governed – the signers of the Constitution all had lived under the tyranny of the British Monarchy of the time and did not want that for America – they wanted freedom and a free America – the Constitution is designed for a free America. This is also why the Bill of Rights was added, the people would not accept the Constitution as it was because it did not grant enough freedom.
So, this ruling reveals two things, people are divided over guns but yet want their freedom (we can see this in some of the posts). Thankfully, enough of the Judges voted for the people and not the government – they did their job well.
Unfortunately however, there are many today who seem to not be too keen on freedom for the people (or at least a very limited freedom) and seem instead to want to grant more power to the government over the governed. They seem to want to reverse the intent of the signers of the Constitution, that is, to put limits on the governed instead of the government – not realizing that doing so runs the risk of once again returning to a state of tyranny.
Note, most likely, had Al Gore or even John Kerry been elected President, liberal judges would have been appointed to the Bench and probably this would have gone the other way, upholding the DC ban on Guns and possibly overturning the 2nd Amendment altogether.
At least, that is how I see it.
Yes, and anyone who says otherwise is dumb.
Yes, I do. Citizens should have the right and means to defend themselves. I realize culture is different now (most of us don’t live on dangerous frontier land, etc.), but I still think the second amendment applies.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have gun control laws to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, though. That’s just a good precaution. Balance is the key.
Plus, to paraphrase someone else, “Guns don’t kill people–people kill people.”
oh yes, we need to own our gun as long as we know that we have to use it in good ways. . .
like protection. ..
agree?
I do think we have the right to bear arms. My late husband was retired military and owned a gun, (he kept locked) and my current husband is a huge deer & turkey hunter. He lived alone when I married him, so he didn’t lock them up out here on the farm. After we married we bought a huge gun safe cuz I didn’t want guns laying around with my 13 yr old.
Well, my husband took him to hunter safety class and now he hunts too! He also taught him how to fire his late dads Ruger.
I myself do not really like to fire guns, (I only have 2 times) but I do know that if they took our guns away all of the gang members would keep trading and continue to own them, and we who register ours would not.
I also know that guns do not kill people, People kill people with guns, just like the guy above said about the knives, heck you can use anything to kill someone.
I think the whole matter is the matter of the heart. The only way ppl are going to quit killing each other is to have a heart change thru trusting Christ as their Savior.
(havnt read others responses yet)
The Constitution was created to separate us from England. I think that it was created to help have a militia and to give an equal balance between the new government and the people. This allowed the people to revolt incase the government got too powerful. But since then, the world has changed and so has our relationship with the government. We are no longer allowed to do that. I believe that it is time to update the laws since our country has changed, and keep the laws that require a license to possess guns.
Most definitely…As it states…”The right of the people to keep and bear arms”…I won’t get into my “personal” experience…but when something traumatic and devastating happens to a person that could have been prevented had they had a gun for protection it tends to change your opinion.
“We hear and read so much about guns and gun violence. Gun free zones like VA Tech are killing fields for people that break laws. If people wern’t't being denied their Second Amendment rights at VA Tech, 34 people would not have died. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Love, Joy Peace and pass the Ammunition”
Uh, no . . . I don’t think guns should be allowed on school campuses. That’s insane. Partying college kids and frats with access to lethal weapons? How about not. That’s communal living, not individual houses with individual rights, totally different . . . And I struggle to understand how guns on VA Tech would have stopped the slaughtering of 34 people, because there were guns on VA Tech . . . the security guards. Unless you are suggesting that a professor reach into his or her top desk drawer and whip out a Glock, there was nothing that could have been done . . . except, of course, a better notification system. I think that was really partially responsible, as well. I mean, let’s equate this to Columbine. Should high school kids be able to have guns? Of course not! There are officers deemed to protect them not just from others, but from themselves.
That being said, private homes are, in my opinion, different. I do believe citizens have the right to own firearms if they go about it legally and carefully. Another responder was right, we are not Communist Russia.
To play the devil’s advocate, I have to ask: If a group abuses a right to the harm of others, don’t they risk the suspension of that right . . .? That’s muddy water right there, though, because where would you draw the line?
And one last comment – times are complately different now than they were in 1776. The Founding Fathers could have never even dreamed up . . . well, something like 9/11.
As long as you are responsible with it and keep it out of the reach of children and strangers. The right to bear arms is a right to self-defense and the protection of our own lives… who dares to deny us that?
No. It didn’t extend to all people either and was based on European feudalism. Having said that, I’m a hypocrite when it comes to guns – I’ve lived in the UK for 30 years so it isn’t a problem not having one, and to be honest I prefer living in a largely gun free society. But if it was legal I would probably own one and my principles would just melt away.
@KechiNeko244 - just cause your entry made me smile I’ll answer your question – it would be very difficult to know how many guns were stollen cause the evidence would have been dunked in coffee and eaten immediately afterwards!
Oh, and Communist Russia isn’t Communist any more either. They’re now a fully fledged Democracy with criminal oligarchs, massive corruption by individuals and organisations, growing crime rates, a burgeoning middle class fuelled by greed and more defined poverty. Guess that means we won the Cold War!
@la_faerie_joyeuse - I was taught more about Australian politics and past history in school.
@ihaveanalibi - LOL, oops for spelling errors! I didn’t even know that stollens were delicious pastries.
It’s a cliche, but still true: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Eliminating all the guns from the planet seems like a nice idea, but in reality “gun control” amounts to nothing more than victim disarmament. Our Founding Fathers knew that, and that’s why they made it the second item in the Bill of Rights, immediately after freedom of speech. An individual right to armed self-defense is precisely what they intended.
Absolutely. And, by the way, it’s unlikely that any of the Founding Fathers didn’t keep weapons. They understood as well as any that the right of self-defense is fundamental to any free society. They also knew that the “militia”, by traditional definition, is comprised of all able-bodied male citizens capable of bearing arms. This tradition comes down to us from earliest British history and was held to be both necessary and sacred in the American colonies. It is no less so today. The armed citizen remains the most stalwart deterrent to enemies from abroad and criminals within.
It’s probably the Alabama in me..
I’d die if someone tried to tell my dad he couldnt have his guns
even though personally I care nothing about having one
And if they ban guns..
they’re pretty much saying its okay for the bad guys to have them..
but the good guys can lie around and get shot
I have a permit and carry concealed most of the time, where ever I go. Living in here in the thriving South Central area of PA, I think I’d rather depend on myself for protection than a phone call to 911 and a 10-20 minute response time for a police offcer to show up.
Guns are not responsible for people getting shot, people are responsible for shooting people, That’s why we have instant background checks to buy or be issued a Lisence to Carry Weapons permit.
There’s only one “Gun Law” that ever reduced the amiunt of gun violence, and that is in Kennesaw, GA, every home owner must have a gun and ammunition to live there, and they have the lowest gun violence rate in the US, what cities have the most gun violence, the cities with the most restrictive gun laws.
The real reason the “progressive” liberals want to ban guns is so we can’t raise up and fight back the marxist socialism that they will try to drag us into if ever given the opportunity.
@never_let_go_41512 - Well, first of all, those kids would have to be 21 just to legally buy a gun to begin with, or obtain a permit to carry one. But of course they are the ones who did well in school so they could go to college and not have to join the military at 18 years of age and got their very own fully automatic assault rifle.
I don’t think that carrying guns on VT would have stopped the crazy guy, but I don’t think that 34 would have died that day. The onlyperson that put up a fight that day was a survivor of Nazi Germany’s death camps, the rst just cowered and died.
I carry a concealed weapon legally every day. Because I don’t want to wait the minutes for a cop to show up to fill out a report of a homicide. Every day we hear of people being killed by someone wth a gun. IMHO, it’s better to be tried by twelve than carried by six
Yes, absolutely!
Actually, the main reason for the second Amendment was for citizens to be able to defend themselves against the government, should they need to.
And kids dying because of accidental gunshots? More kids drown in buckets every year, yet I fail to know of any campaigns against buckets. Furthermore, there are hundreds upon hundreds of crimes and most likely murders stopped every year because a responsible, law-abiding citizen was carrying a gun and able to stop the crime.
I believe that the writers of the Constitution were thinking more of wars and the people being able to form militias than keeping guns in homes. Having said that, I don’t think there is anything wrong with having a gun if you obtained it legally and use it for protection.
@TommyCrowwithWhiteFeathers - I borrowed the following from your MySpace blog sweetheart. I thought it was awesome.
40 Reasons to Support Gun Control
(Apparently derived from the essay by Michael Z. Williamson.)
(Also known as the proof positive that Liberals are not just stupid, but insane.)
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense — give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10.The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
14. These phrases,” right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumeration’s herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
15. We don’t need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles,” because they are military weapons.
18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but “civilians” do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” they don’t mean you. Really.
Back in the early days of this country the people were the militia. So I would say yes, their intent was for civilian people to own and keep their own weapons in their home.