Comments on: High Noon For The 2nd Amendment?

Andrew Cohen: Expect A Showdown During U.S. Supreme Court's Landmark Gun Case

[cfin5]

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

~Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

letter to Judge William Johnson

(from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

[ranger1948]

Unfortunately we have a great number of people who refuse to live by the laws established by society. This makes it necessary for the law abiding citizen to be able to protect themselves. I think our police do a tremendous job , however they cannot always be where we need them all the time.

[ranger1948]

Our constitution states that if anyone tries to infringe upon or take away our rights under the constitution, we not only have the right but also the duty to take up arms to prevent them from doing so.

[ranger1948]

If a person chooses not to own or carry a firearm i respect their right to do so. I do not want them trying to take away my right to do so. I am a law abiding citizen, i only wish to be able to protect myself, my family, my property and anyone who i may see being attacked by a criminal. I am retired military and police. I am an expert with my weapons. I have a college degree in crinimology with a minor in psychology. I have no desire to hurt anyone. I have served in combat and seen the horrors of war and the horrors at crime scenes.

[ranger1948]

If a person chooses not to own or carry a firearm i respect their right to do so. I do not want them trying to take away my right to do so. I am a law abiding citizen, i only wish to be able to protect myself, my family, my property and anyone who i may see being attacked by a criminal. I am retired military and police. I am an expert with my weapons. I have a college degree in crinimology with a minor in psychology. I have no desire to hurt anyone. I have served in combat and seen the horrors of war and the horrors at crime scenes.

[ranger1948]

Yes it is legal to own rifles and shotguns in D.C. However if an intruder breaks into your home i supose you are supposed to say, could you wait a minute while i inlock and load my rifle or shotgun. I think their law is to restrictive and deprives us of second amendment rights.

[ranger1948]

I am strongly inm favor of being able to own and have firearms. I am also for registering and getting carry permits. I also think anyone selling a firearm should have to get a clearance from the state for the individual buying the firearm whether they are a gun dealer or not. I also think a person should be psychologically tested before being allowed to purchase a handgun. I would also like to see a requirement for gun training classes for gun owners. I do not agree that we should arm all males 18 and over. I have seen plenty of people 21 and up that should not be allowed to have a weapon. I do believe everywhere that has an established policy allowing people to carry , the crime rate has decreased significantly. I know criminals do not care what the law is and will have a weapon no matter the law. I also think being able to have and carry a weapon is a deterrent to crime as the criminal wants a victim who cannot defend themselves.

[roger3815]

How is it that the implicit "right to bear arms" can''t have exceptions? Yet the explicit "congress shall make no law" has exceptions? These gun zealots are idiots.

[cfin5]

If the Supreme Court sides with Washington DC in this, then they will be GUILTY of breaking the 9th. Amendment which says,......[The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.] Folks, this means that it is unconstitutional for ANYONE to twist the intended meaning of the words wrote down and ratified in order to confiscate or restrain any of the other rights that a citizen owns in certainty.....If you want to argue what the Founding Fathers meant, then just read what they said before and after the Bill of Rights made into LAW. They created it,....there are no others for us best refer to is there?

[gkc99]

If the Supremes are true to form, we''ll have some spineless, mealy mouthed bit of foam that settles nothing and is based in the personal political views of the "justices"--otherwise known as "the 9 dwarves".

[downsteamjim]

They make enough guns for me to live in most of D.C., although an Abrams tank might be effective.

[tburzio]

"Well Regulated" means "proficient, likely to cause a good outcome". It does NOT mean that there are laws restricting militias.

[guysdigdirt]

The gun-control ( and guns have nothing to do with it) group will predict the world will result in chaos if their side loses. They are fear-mongers and will pick the scab of fear anytime they can to get what they want.

[rukiddinme3]

My prayers are for the Justices in this decision. Please make a clear decision that affirms the Founders intent, namely, that ALL of the Bill of Rights were to protect individuals from the government. Not to grant powers to the government. They already have wwwaaayyy too much of that.


And that is what I find so confusing about this debate. On the one hand, the Left seems to scream and yell if ANY type of government power is applied against the individual, but when the ultimate power is proposed, they seem to run shreaking into the streets in fear.

Either you want ALL of the Bill of Rights or you want none in my opinion. Which type of person are you?

[wogerwabbit]

If we required all adults over 18 to carry firearms, the crime rate would plummet to near zero, the prisons would be near empty and people would be a lot more polite to each other. I''ll vote for that.

[gunownerdan]

"Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."
-- Congressman Ron Paul, June 27, 2006

[random_radar]

The intent of the second amendment was to ensure that state militias and armed citizens were always available to fight the federal government to prevent a national dictatorship from taking over. The threat of armed insurrection by the people and the states is one of the checks and balances to reign in the power of the federal government.

The reason that the Federal government is opposed to 2nd amendment rights is--surprise!--they don''t want the possibility of armed opposition to their rule. Gun control is not about crime or accidental deaths in the home; it is about maintaining our ability to fight a civil war to defend our freedom.

You should support gun control if you are in favor of an authoritarian dictatorship. You should support the right to keep and bear arms if you want to be free. That is the true question about the 2nd amendment.

[classicdoc]

"DC only bans the possession of handguns. There are restrictions on the storage of rifles and shotguns, but their possession is legal."

Possession of a functional rifle or shotgun is illegal. The moment you load it or remove the trigger lock, you''re breaking the law. Not that you''ll have time to do so if an intruder is in your bedroom.

[bobs1066]

My point was that the writer made a factual error before he got through two complete paragraphs.

[borderraven]

2nd Ammendment provides for the people to be armed , therefore providing skilled shooters, and the states a body of persons from which to form an organized militia, but nothing stops people (unorganized militia) from responding to local situation, i.e., civil unrest or invasion until properly relieved.