• #1
    i'm looking at my copy of constitution ,federalist papers,anti-federalist papers,i see no limitation,in fact some of these papers seem to support that american citizens would be irresponsible not to be armed at all times
  • #25
    @woodtick57 "So you think felons should be able to own guns?"

    Isn't this article in reference to law abiding citizens? Criminals will always have weapons, take a look at Great Britain!
  • #28

    i was responding to the commenter's statement about no imitations. There are, in fact, limitations to this right of US citizens.
  • #30
    @woodtick57 Once they have served their time and got their voting rights re-instated that yes, then should be no problem with their ownership of firearms.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    I vote none of the above. My right to defend myself is applicable in any public place. Private places are another matter though. If you want me to not carry in your private place, that is your right.
  • #145
    Was the constitution suppose to favor and protect the people or the goverment. Rember what happened when they took guns away from the indians.NEVER leave home without one.
  • #51
    People have the right of self protection, The 2nd Ammendment is the law of the land.
    America is different than other countries, Because we do have the right of self protection.
  • #17
    Yes it is. Amazing how the idea of asking for a photo ID to vote enrages the left and gets them howling about voter "suppression" and infringing on rights but limiting our second amendment rights doesn't phase them in the least.
  • #20
    There are limits to almost all of our rights as has been shown in numerous supreme court cases.

    The text also says "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 a lot to be interpreted in those words and one such meaning could very easily be that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as part of the well regulated militia. Where is the "well regulated militia"? Who is doing the regulating?
  • #24
    @AceLuby the bottom line is the second Amendment guarantees the citizen arrite to protect himself from an out of control government. thats what its original intention was and that's what it intention is today.

    and more states need to have a well regulated militia completely divorced from the federal government .
  • #27
    @bsking Lol, the govt has tanks, bombers, jets, aircraft carriers, RPG's, nuclear bombs, etc... What is a citizen going to do up against a nuclear weapon?

    Frankly, it's a ridiculous notion to think that the citizens of the US could take on the biggest military in the world head on.
  • R Load more replies

  • #23
    @Cool_voter yeah you should bring it up at the next Constitutional Congress... maybe they can put it in there somewhere between the ninth and eleventh amendment
  • #88
    That's what I did. From shit-cago to Houston Texas. Love it here. Got my gun on my side sitting in a subway as I text this.
  • #190
    I live in Washington State and we are a fully automatic state. If you can put up with the legal pot, gay marriage and rain, come on over!
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    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.
  • #31
    The gun loving kooks always overlook this part of the second amendment when they launch into one of their foaming-at-the-mouth rants about their right to own/carry as many pistols, derringers, rifles, shotguns, AK-47's, bazookas, rocket launchers, etc. as they please. The overwhelming majority of these gun worshippers would run and hide if an actual call ever went out for "well regulated militia" members to come forth and fight to defend our nation.
    Arch-conservative gun lovers have a long history of avoiding serving in defense of America.
    George W. Bush got/allowed daddy to secure a spot for him in the Texas Air National Guard. While serving far from any real action he engaged the liquor bottle and marijuana bag in nightly skirmishes. Rumor has it liquor and marijuana won, but George battled courageously against these two enemies of democracy and freedom. He emerged from those battles a drunkard, an idiot, and a proven gutless coward.
    In an effort to prove he was willing to fight for democracy and against evil terrorists George 'bravely and courageously' sent young American men and women to Iraq and other foreign lands to die and to fight for and defend the very things he was too gutless to fight for and defend as a young man.
    Think about it. Would you want to go into a combat zone with Dick Cheney backing you up? The spineless puke got five deferments from the draft in order to avoid military service.
    Cheney, gutless coward that he is, would run at the first sight of the enemy or the first sound of gunfire. When caught up with and asked why he ran when the order was given to "Pick up your gun!" he'd answer, "I thought you said 'Pick up and run!'"
    Thank God we don't have to rely on conservatives/republicans like Patrick Buchanan (known for bar room brawls, but not battlefield heroics), Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, John Wayne (performed his own stunts, but couldn’t pick up a rifle during WWII), Sean Hannity, Ronald Reagan, Orin Hatch, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, George Will, Bill O'Reilly, Dan Quayle, Karl Rove, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, John Ashcroft, Michael Savage, et al - the list of gutless conservatives/republicans just goes on and on and on an on - to actually suit up and defend our great nation. If we did we'd all be speaking German, Russian or Arabic today, because not one of the aforementioned cowardly saber rattlers ever donned a uniform in defense of our great nation.
    God bless America!!
  • #38
    @DapperDave Wow, quite a response to a mere posting of the second amendment. I guess rights really get you worked up huh?
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #63
    @DapperDave well it does not say, the right of the people only in a militia. and i carried a revolver, before i went into the us army. but i choose to not, to carry one since then. this is my, decision only to make. but the wording allows gun owners, to form a militia. and it does not state, it has to be a state militia or any other militia. the only reasoning for any organized militia, is to standardize the weapons used. so that you don't have to supply, a million different types of ammo. which would be, a ligistical nightmare.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #167
    Of all the enumerated rights explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, ONLY the 2nd amendment uses the far more constrictive constraint of "... shall not be INFRINGED." As such, the intent was to preclude even the slightest restriction of the God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    Furthermore, it was the expressed intent that the people bear the SAME arms as was (or ever would be) employed by military infantrymen. No private citizen in good standing can legally be disarmed. However, convicted felons are wards of the state, and all government employees, and all welfare recipients, are creatures of the state - and can be regulated by administrative policy at the governments discretion.
    It really is that simple.
  • #60
    the second amendment is an unalienable, right to bear arms. nor does it specify, only in your home. that is worthelss to say, you can only defend yourself in your home only.

    or that it is alienable, in public only. nor does it say, you have to carry a firearm. this is left up to the descretion, of the person. whether they desire to carry any firarm or not. without any impedance, of said act. it is not the federal, state, or local government's job, to say i have to, or cannot carry a firearm. it is my decision, not theirs.
  • #21
    if you live in the more controlling State like New York then you sacrifice your rights willingly. that's why New Yorkers are at the mercy of the gangbangers and criminals.
    people who want to enjoy more of their rights need to move out of states like New York and California.
  • #48
    Editor in Chief,
    Consider moving to Mexico where handguns are freely available with no pesky registration requirements.
  • #94
    @Lbodine you don't have to move to Mexico and underarm available without Pesky registration requirements... off the top of my head I think there's something like 35 States that allow you to own a handgun without registering it. in fact there's about I think about 10 states that allow you to own automatic weapons... I own a home in 1 of them. now for automatic weapons you do have to jump through some hoops... and of course give the government the grift that it's looking for in the form of permit fees.. but if I were so inclined I could go out today and buy a fully automatic machine gun provided I went through the paperwork with the ATF which is not that difficult and I believe I would have to get my local sheriff where my property is located to sign a form stating that whether or not he has any information of me being a threat to the community. it's just that simple. of course you have to go through background checks which I already have. I think the only ones that go to Mexico for guns are ATF agents working for Eric Holder but they're leaving guns they're not buying them.
  • #100
    @Lbodine please excuse the "underarm".. my voice recognition software is lacking.. I did appreciate your article but if you check my information is correct also.. I own property in Virginia as well as two other states. I am very familiar with New York gun laws and the ridiculous restrictions they put on law abiding trained citizens as it pertains to owning a handgun. contrast that with Virginia where the same law abiding trained citizen buy simply paying the proper fees and doing the paperwork with the ATF and you pay yearly I think it's 250 dollars its called a tax stamp, and then you can go buy a class 3 firearm which is fully automatic. there are strict rules and regulations you need to follow to own one,one of which is in transporting a class 3 firearm you need to notify every juristictional authority that you intend to pass through that you have a class 3 weapon. you also need to be able to produce the weapon at anytime day or night if called upon by the ATF or other similar agencies.
    and of course you have to be able to afford to spend tbousands of rounds of ammunition for an afternoon of entertainment.
  • #258
    @Lbodine Obviously you have never lived there, but I have for several years as a dual citizen, both in Veracruz and Jalisco, and your information is ridiculously errant, if not intentionally incorrect. Mexican citizens are barred from owning pistols of "military" caliber or even a single round of ammo for one. Any other weapons are VERY difficult to get, unless you have $$$$ and/or corrupt political connections. Most weapons obtained in Mexico are gotten illegally from cartels, the military, local, state, and federal police, as they sell them to cartel members for profit. Most weapons are imported via Guatemala from central and south America, countries such as Venezuela and Colombia.
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    This poll utterly oversimplifies the issue, and offers no reasonable answer among the responses available. That is part of the problem with gun regulation is that one side fails to acknowledge that a certain degree of regulation is prudent and desirable. Gun proponents often cite the 1st Amendment, and its lack of restriction, but their analogy is not entirely apt. Free speech is not without limitation, as Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr. pointed out in Schenk v United States. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre, for example, would not be within the realm of free speech.
  • #305
    Brandishing would be the nearest Second Amendment analog of such an act as shouting fire in a crowded theatre. The act of carrying, however, is not menacing and is indeed what "bear" means under the Constitution.
  • #306
    @bcombs Funny, then why do so many states require a concealed carry permit? Rationalize all you wish, but your conception of menacing may not actually fit with the law's.
  • #307
    @Litdes Funny? Clearly your exaggerated sense of humor is failing you here. You mentioned the crowded theatre example; carrying is not "shouting fire". Indeed, as you note, most states require the concealed manner of carry - the very opposite of "shouting fire." However, note that even open carry of firearms is not "shouting fire" - use of force regulations under penal law consideres this and in fact anticipates it. Law enforcement has borne, openly, exposed firearms for decades; if that were "shouting fire", then the officers doing so would also be subject to liability. Moreover, open carry was the original manner of carry preferred by the states for their people and in fact it was concealed carry (if any) that was regulated.

    The state has a compelling interest in e.g. ensuring that non-prohibited people don't have or carry firearms; ergo a licensing scheme. Note, however, that most states have non-discretionary ("shall issue") licensing for residents (and some have for non-residents), meaning that anyone who is not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms can acquire a license.

    Some people may view gun possession, ownership, or carry as "menacing"; that does not make it so. Just as possessing, owning, and carrying books are protecting under the first amendment, so, too, are those same modes of expression protected under the second. See, D.C.v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago.
  • #309
    @Litdes What point are you arguing? Yes, many states require a background check but issue to all non-prohibited applicants. That's a stark contrast to no-issue and may-issue states. But, again, you seem to be arguing some other point you weren't before.
  • #239
    Correction - the moment government takes away our guns, THEY make THEMSELVES criminal. When they come for yours, you might consider giving them exactly what they demand - ammo first - one at a time.
  • #217
    There are crimes against private citizens happening daily almost everywhere.
    Our streets, parks, very few public places; even our homes are not safe any longer.
    A PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AT ALL TIMES. The police react, they do not protect. A gun is not necessary to kill someone. An ordinary rolling pin would work very well. The moment the government takes away our right to keep and bare arms, they make me a criminal.
  • #116
    " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I do not see the word UNLESS any where in this statement. Do you? The Constitution should have the finally say so in all debates restricting liberty's not the fear of the majority or the will of one man regardless of the merit of argument. Even if the supreme court rules against it the words are clear "shall not be infringed".
  • #176
    You are absolutely correct! Any infringement, even by the Supreme Court, operates ONLY to reveal their lawlessness and treachery - which can only be effectively opposed by armed citizens.
  • #72
    it is a sad commentary, when you only say that crooks, terrorists, and mass murderers. can only carry weapons and you, protect yourself from them. since police do not usualy arrive, before your already murdered. the police and the military, are not your first line of defense. we the people of the united states of america, are the first line of defense. since it takes time, for them to get their act together. prior to the revolutionary war, they had to keep their guns hidden. or the brittish would, confiscate them, in without warning search and sezures. guns were considered as contraband, for the citizens. and were only for, the brittish militia to have.
  • #54
    "for public safety reasons" is an ambiguous term that is used to claim a compelling state interest that more often than not that infringes the Second Amendment.

    The people have the right to "keep" and "bear" arms. It says nothing about ONLY in the home. It makes no sense that the Amendment would mean a person can only sit around home with their gun in toe but cannot take it outside the home.

    New Yorks finest cannot protect anyone. It's like everywhere else, once the cops get there the damage is usually done. That alone should be enough reason for a law-abiding citizen to be unrestricted in the right to carry arms outside the home.
  • #40
    Federal Court decisions are not the litmus test of Constitutionality any more than SCOTUS decisions. Both courts have become filled with political appointees chosen for their specific opinions regarding the question of the day during selection process.… The connection between the scope of “the Right” of speech and bearing arms is actually very valid.… As inconvenient as it may be to the Anti-Gun-Rights folks, both were written by the same people at the same time and ratified together making ambiguities of wording pretty unlikely.… When the writers said “The Right of The People” they meant the same level of “Right”and the same group of “The People.…“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” are worded in the same way for a reason, the framers were making a statement of absolutes.… Unlawful search and free speech are direct reflections on the issues which forced the framers of the constitution to fight for independence from England. They along with several other Amendments in the Bill of Rights bear a strong resemblance to the grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence penned by many of the same men. It doesn't take spending the night in a Holiday Inn Express to see the obvious connection between the events surrounding these men and their writings.… The Second Amendment isn't about home defense, hunting, sports, recreation or collecting. The writers had just completed FIGHTING A WAR for their independence, it wasn't a note to the King asking for freedom or a contingent of diplomats stopping by the castle for a spot of tea. The King WANTED his colonies
    in America and the riches they contained for his own so he sent the most powerful army in the world at the time to enforce his wishes. The men who wrote the second amendment knew the importance of an ARMED CITIZENRY against an oppressive, unresponsive government. Without arms, the King's will be done and the inhabitants of the American Colonies would be serfs doing his bidding.… The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is a statement of right for the citizens of the country to maintain sufficient arms to stand up to and remove if necessary, the government should it become oppressive and unresponsive.… The Second Amendment is simple, the “limits” are simplier. Incarcerated people obviously cannot be armed, insane people cannot be armed, other than that, I cannot come up with any reason for free CITIZEN to be prohibited arms. Gun Control laws are just the Anti-Rights people chipping away slowly at what they lack the courage and ability to do outright.
  • #7
    I'm not going to vote on this one. I own guns, I'm pro gun for law abiding citizens. I think we have sufficient gun laws but they need to be enforced. I do believe there are limitations. In California I had to wait 15 days I think it was last time I bought a gun for the background check. That doesn't bother me at all because I know I'm good to go with a background check. But I do have concerns with things I have seen and know about at gun shows and swap meets, flea markets. Once I saw a guy in all camouflage in a tiny pop up cover with a bunch of handguns laid out. All around him were pants sagging black guys buying those guns. In a space of less than 20 minutes all the guns were gone, the guy packed up and was gone as well. Now call it a stereotype if you will but I don't see good things coming from those guys having 20 guns or so. I don't see a need for a citizen having a .50 caliber mounted on a pickup truck. There just has to be some accountability here.
  • #19
    Excellent point. The writers of the Bill of Rights never envisioned automatic handguns with 30 round clips, cop killer bullets, or sniper rifles being sold to anyone with the money.
  • #62

    Oh yeah I'm sure the founding fathers never dreamed weapons technology would advance seeing how they we're made up of idiots like Ben Franklin and the like. Also, please feel free to elaborate how 30 round magazines, assault weapons, cop killer bullets as you put it, etc. are inherently evil.
  • #66
    @John_Matrix Are you claiming to know whether or now Ben Franklin had the foresight of nuclear weapons? If so, care to provide any sliver of proof?

    Regarding your question, those weapons are made for one reason only, killing people as efficiently as possible. So my question to you is, is killing people efficiently 'inherently evil'?
  • #83

    I'm not saying they foresaw nuclear weapons but they obviously had the foresight to realize weapons would become more advanced and efficient, it's only obvious. Funny how the AK in my closet with my multiple high capacity magazines fail to cause violence and mayhem, but then again I'm smart enough to realize that it's nothing more than a machine, incapable of any action itself, requring HUMAN input. Also, killing people efficiently is not always inherently evil, such as when killing a threat to your family or to yourself. Any other stupid questions?
  • #85
    @John_Matrix Again, the burden of proof is on you to show they knew weapon advancement would go as far as it has. You have provided none.

    Killing a threat to your family does not require automatic weapons, huge clips, or special armor piercing bullets.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...