Where do you stand on Gun Rights ?

I live in Canada, and I am strongly against the use of guns. If somone can legaly own a firearm, then that would make crim that much easier

None of the April 11 editions of the network morning shows: ABC’s “Good Morning America,” CBS’s “The Early Show,” and NBC’s “Today,” noted the April 10 unanimous ruling of the California Supreme Court striking down a San Francisco handgun ban - Surprise you ?

Obama, in a 1996 candidate survey, revealed his 2nd Amendment answer: asked if he supports legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” His one-word answer—uncommonly direct and lacking the flowery eloquence we’ve come to expect from him—was “Yes.”

It was also put in place because we had no standing army at the time, and in times of war, militiamen were expected to show up with there own weapon.

Filetofspam is absolutely spot on. The supreme court has never ruled the 2dn ammendment refers to personal gun ownership nor has it ever ruled that states don’t have the right to regulate them.

The NRA goes so far in their 2nd ammendmanet propaganda, that on there DC headquater, they show the second ammendment, but leave of the first part: “A well regulated militia being necessary for the secrurtiy of a free state…”. The actual subject of the ammendment.

The Supreme Court in the past has considered the 2nd ammendment to protect collective and state rights rather than individual ones. The fact that most Americans believe that the 2nd ammendment guarantees individual rights is little more than an indication that the NRA has been very effective at communicating its view that the 2nd ammendment guarantees individual rights.

The court is hearing its first case in 70 years to determine if the 2nd ammendment protects individual rights.

Historically the 2nd ammendment was put in place to assure Southern states that they would be allowed to arm militias to put down slave uprisings.

Pretty clearly says that members of the public have the right to own weapons for the purpose of defending their communities.

That being said, I believe in very strict gun control. In Switzerland, where gun ownership is much higher than in the US, there are very strict laws about purchasing and maintaining weapons, as well as higher standards for training. I favor very intense regulation of the gun industry and gun ownership.

I know the 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms was meant for war. Yet I also believe you should have the right to protect yourself and your loved ones.

I truely believe I have the right to protect myself and my family. It does not give me the right to walk around with a gun in my hand. It does give me the right to use force to maintain the safety of myself and my family. If someone forces their way into your home, the police for one will not be there in time to save you. Also they are there to negotiate. If someone comes into my home by force you bet I am going to protect.

jimahl, you and I are the ultimate authorities on the meaning of the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. The Constitution is a contract between the government and those who are governed.

Where do I stamd? I have 2 pistols, 2 rifles, 4 swords and 5 dagger plus a 14 inch bowie knife. . . . . . And one mean Cat. . . . . .

Amendment I

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. Right of a person to keep and bear arms. . . . looks clear after all a militia is made up of private citizens. . . . .

As I read the 2nd amendment, we are guaranteed the right to keep guns and to use them in service to our community. I do not read a right to use them for personal activities.

That said, I do not feel that I am educated enough on the subject right now to say what is right and what is wrong concerning gun ownership.

autotech, I appreciate all that you said. Here is the results of a poll taken on Americans support for gun rights. And you are right todaly we are the ones that are the authority not the pasifying liberals.

More Proof That Americans Support The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Friday, March 28, 2008

Need more confirmation that a majority of Americans support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Look no further than the results of a Gallup poll, which were reported in a March 27, Gallup.com article. The poll found that an overwhelming majority of the United States public– 73% – believes that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms.

For regular readers of the Grassroots Alert, the findings come as no surprise. In fact, the Gallup poll reflects comparable results from a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll carried out December 6-9, 2007, which found that 65% of Americans believe the Constitution guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Other recent polls have shown that Americans support gun rights. A Zogby International poll for Associated Television News, conducted December 13-17, 2007 found 27% of voters would be more likely to support a candidate endorsed by NRA (through its PAC, NRA Political Victory Fund). That survey showed that NRA ranks above Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, the AFL-CIO, Oprah Winfrey, and Barbara Streisand in influencing voters! And another Zogby International poll conducted earlier in 2007 found that 66% of the American voting public rejects the idea that new gun control laws are needed.

The results of this latest poll make clear where the majority of Americans stand, and confirm what other polls have consistently shown: Americans overwhelmingly support firearm rights and ownership.

The Second Amendment guarantees: “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.”

This guarantees a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern – the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government.

James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had “the advantage of being armed,” that was lacking in other nations, where “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Patrick Henry proclaimed the “great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.” The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Nowhere did the court hold that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms. In United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, 850 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1996), Judge Kozinski opined that “The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one’s home against physical attack.” In United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2000), the court held that “… an individual’s right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller …” In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the court examined United States v. Miller and held: “We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals … to privately possess and bear their own firearms …”

The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991).

On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that “the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units.” http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2004opinions.htm

The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn’t trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was “calculated to secure the personal rights of the people.”

Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia’s constitutional convention in 1788: “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”

Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails.

The right of the people shall not be infringed.

The supreme court will be upholding this statement in a few weeks and when that happens this issue will be settled once and for all.

It is a fact in all the countries that have the strictest gun laws or gun bans that their crime levels are much higher. When will you liberal thinking idots realize that criminals don’t give a damn about the laws preventing them from having a gun.

autotech, lets not resort to ad hominem attacks ok.

Last I checked the murder rate in the UK was 1.1 per 100,000. The murder rate in the US was 5.4 per 100,000. Sounds like things aren’t so bad over there with all that nasty gun control.

I have news for you; you can use statistics to say anything you want. The NRA has statistics that show that we live in constant mortal danger and that you would be a fool not to be packing all the time. Gun control groups have statistics that show any privately owned handgun is many times more likely to kill a family member than the perpetrator of a crime. None of the statistics really add up; both sides cherry pick what they can use to further their point. This is what we call polemic.

Personally, I don’t have anything against guns per se. I grew up in the country and we had lots of guns and I spent a lot of time shooting. Just because you like or dislike guns shouldn’t effect what the constitution means.

It is true that gun laws have been applied against blacks. When slaves were freed there were laws against them owning guns. After these were struck down often fees for registering guns were high enough to make it difficult for most blacks or poor whites to own guns. Today guns are banned in public housing where more blacks live than white.

Wow. Wow. That is the best example of rejecting reality and substituting your own that I have ever read. Actually, I apologise. It is never constructive to resort to insults, and for that I sincerely apologise. Nevertheless, I will continue to heap scorn on an inexcusably foolish notion. You say the second amendment may have had a hand in propegating slavery? Sure. One of the times a Militia will be called into service is in the event of widespread disorder, which is what a slave revolt would have been seen as. So yes, it is plausible. But the sole intent? Tsk Tsk.

Historically speaking, the better armed the population is, the safer the population is. Take, for example, Great Britain. Before the enactment of that foolish ban (by itself a good enough reason to depose a government, in my opinion), before they relied exclusively on a professional police force (who, it is important to note, are not responsible for protecing you, after all, they aren’t your personal bodyguard, and they are above reproach, even if their negligence causes you to be even more greivously injured), their crime rates were low. After the Ban, only criminals had guns, and their gun related crime increased by about 40%. So now, in America, while about one in five homes is armed (and about 9% of burglaries happen while the house is occupied), in Great Britain, no homes are armed (and about 67% of burglaries happen while the house is occupied). And you are safer in America. If you don’t like guns, fine, don’t buy them. But don’t kid yourself by thinking you can stop Criminals from having Guns, and don’t try legislate away my right to keep and bear arms. A right which is recognized to predate the constitution and the United States of America.

In point of fact, since you mention Racism as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, did you know the earliest laws against carrying concealed weapons were aimed at freed slaves? And later, they simply removed race from the letter of the law, but it was simply understood that those laws would not be enforced against white people?

I guess Filetofspam prefers to forget that blacks who possessed firearms used them against the KKK in several well publicized incidents.

But gun ownership is all a plot by whitey! Some people are just beyond all help…

As a Black man and a member of the NRA I will only give up my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

I see the right to keep and bear arms as my own personal right to decide when I need to bear my personal arms. in defense of the country, or in the defense of my friends or family, and of course myself. whether I am a member of an active militia- or just an ordinary citizen, I will use my personal weapons to defend that which I decide is in need of defending. I am a member of the NRA, and I believe in a citizens rights to carry ( after receiving proper training) a firearm for self protection. and I also support a citizens right to possess firearms for hunting and target shooting. if my home is invaded I will use the proper TOOL to defend myself. I believe that private ownership is a very effective deterrent to violent crime. the 2nd amendment is one of the things that sets us apart from other countries, and I stand behind the wisdom our founding fathers had in writing this amendment - it is just as applicable now as it was then- to keep our country and its citizens from being victimized by those who will seek to harm us.

Regardless of what the original justification was, the 2nd Amendment most definitely delineates the right to keep and bear arms (not just guns).

…but the Constitution is mostly irrelevant these days, so it doesn’t much matter what it actually says.

I don’t know where I read this but I thought the “militia” part also would allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government should it become tyrannical. Anyone know?

That is NRA propaganda. The SCOTUS has ruled that the ammendment refers to the need for a militia to defend the state, not ones personal property, nor to form an insurrection.