Lets not let the attorney general take away our constitutional rights.
"Attorney General Holder says, "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS."
TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS IT ON.
Guess they were not happy with the poll results the first time, so USA today is running another one...Vote now...
Attorney General Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. Then pass the link on to all the pro-gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms."
Please take this survey;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquest … up5895.htm
I have no Idea who any of those dudes are, but I guarantee they would have a tough time coming into my house, hijacking my car, taking my property, etc.
The first dude was a militia supporter who klled 168 people.
The second dude tried to kill President Regan
The third dude killed President Kennedy
The fourth dude shot four alleged muggers in New York.
Why would someone question my character simply because I have posted pictures of people who are symbolic of a gun culture gone completely insane.... and one that is justified by words put into the constitution centuries earlier, when military circumstances where totally different?
He killed them with a weed killer and sugar bomb, not guns
Highly debatable whether he shot Kennedy, improbable in the extreme actually, the shooters were professionals who were brought in by the real criminals, who were dark ops folk.
Possibly 'alleged' only because they failed to mug the intended victim?
The first step any dictatorship has taken was to ban private citizens owning guns, this is true of all dictatorships, and any attempt to ban private gun ownership should ring alarm bells.
"He killed them with a weed killer and sugar bomb, not guns"
---> The point is he was a right wing nut job militia supporter
"Highly debatable whether he shot Kennedy, improbable in the extreme actually, the shooters were professionals who were brought in by the real criminals, who were dark ops folk."
---> Conspiracy theories aside, he got bullet(s) right through the head.. as of course, his brother did... not to mention MLK.. not to mention John Lennon..and on and on and on...
"The first step any dictatorship has taken was to ban private citizens owning guns, this is true of all dictatorships, and any attempt to ban private gun ownership should ring alarm bells."
---> Dictatorships also outlaw theft and jaywalking.. what's your point?
200 years ago, the right to bare arms was logical to the revolutionaries.. Now, if you want to prepare an armed resistance against tyranny, you better also allow for private ownership of missiles, battleships, jet fighters, etc.
And I was wondering why posting pictures of people who are the very reason we need guns to protect ourselves from is a character flaw.
I voted 'no' because it does not give every individual the inalienable right to carry a gun everywhere. It relates to the formation of militias.
Not at all.
"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."
The sentence includes both parts, grammatically connected. the right relates to the outcome. Independent of the intent to form a militia, the absolute right is void.
Specifically there are two justifiable way to interpret this amendment: yours and mine.
Neither is clearly and obviously the "correct" one although yours is currently a bit more popular: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons … endment02/
This was not true in the past and may not be true in the future. I think it is an incorrect reading of the grammar and initial intent to avoid tyranny, not give every person in the country free access to a machine gun.
No, The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in contrast to the militia. So both the people and the militia get to bear arms for the exact reasons that were discussed by Penn.
That is not my interpretation. We could agree to disagree based on understanding the two interpretations and sincerely holding different views.
Or you could just go with the poop flinging approach based on political affiliation.
Who, Me or Greek one? Why attack my character without saying anything about Greek one's character? You aren't being very sincere.
The second half of the sentence is the "right" being described. The first half simply explains the reasoning for it.
The way I see it if the bearing of arms does not support being in a militia, it is void. You can see that the intent of the weapon holder determines whether they get the right.
For this reason a delusional person who would just shoot anyone doesn't get the right.
A felon who carried out gun crimes loses the right.
I would argue that a 15 year old drug dealer in downtown Chicago shouldn't have it either.
Everyone agrees that the right has limits. We just disagree about where to set them.
Being in Chicago where kids are shot pretty much every week and the city is prevented from taking guns away from gangsters does effect my point of view. These kids are not armed for the purpose of opposing tyranny. If there every was a popular armed uprising they would not be in the militia, they would be out looting. I do not support their right to carry guns and I don't feel the second amendment was designed to protect them.
We can certainly disagree but I feel both positions have merit.
If someone wants to hunt or target shoot and would be in a militia should there be a need, more power to them.
Classy response. God forbid you should actually present evidence for your point of view.
I am not even sure how suggesting some people shouldn't vote relates to the idea that they should all have guns.
The "Bill of Rights" is a further constitutional restriction on government, and it protects existing rights. Nowhere does it 'grant' a right, because the Founding Fathers viewed all rights as endowed by our Creator, and not by men.
To read the Second Amendment correctly, we have to find the restictive clause:
"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."
Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights restricts government, not the people, so it must be read accordingly. Here's the restrictive clause on government:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Again, the Bill of Rights restricts government, not the people, which is why it does not say 'Only militia members can keep and bear arms".
That's also why the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual citizen's rights, just like all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
I hope that helps.
The issue you posted has mold on it. It's been circulation in my email every month for years.
No guns they'll use base ball bats.
Bottom line, criminals will always have what they want.
I own legal thing bought with legal methods and money and I'm not going to be robbed by the government of my 2nd. Amendment rights, to protect myself from thugs.
I'm too old to fight.
I've been hunting and target shooting for decades. Both my girls were raised with respect for firearms and have also had hunter and firearm safety training. If anyone seriously believes that taking gun rights away from people who respect firearms and understand how to use them properly will keep them out of the hands of those who want to abuse them, needs a reality check. It would only serve to add another item to the list of those that not only
survive, but thrive underground and on the black market. Drugs are illegal, yet almost any high school student knows who and where the drug dealers are. Prostitution is illegal, but you don't need to look beyond your own computer to find an "escort". Right now there is a small army of profiteers (arms dealers, law enforcement, and lawyers) on both sides of the law just waiting for the government to take away yet another one of our rights and make us all into criminals for not turning in our firearms.
Holy crap, I was expecting more closely contested results-- not 97% saying yes. that's impressive.
"psycheskinner" is absolutely spot on accurate with her logical interpretation -
Owning a firearm(s)IS NOT a Constitutional Right conveniently afforded to each American unless said individual is affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" - I.E. Armed Forces, National Guard et al, as it clearly states in Amendment 2 -
Unfortunately, it was an egregious misinterpretation or possibly even intentional motivation by the Supreme Court Justices to pervert the 2nd Amendment for political gain by subsequently rendering a ridiculous opinion which now affords ALL individuals, regardless of situation and or circumstance, this unjust right - Absurd -
Nowhere in the "Constitution of the United States" does it express we as Americans have the "Unconditional" right to bear arms - And that's a fact -
Our forefathers were not as ignorant nor simplistic in their thinking process as many shallow minded Right Wing Republicans like Mitt Romney claim or had hoped - The great and exceedingly intelligent drafters of our Constitution would never have allowed unconditional firearm ownership and or use -
Simply read the 2nd Amendment "psycheskinner" posted verbatim without the assistance of "Taint" via ridiculous right wing spun influence - Therein you will find the truth -
The fourteenth amendment was written as a means to grant citizenship to African Americans who were born in the US, but were slaves and thus considered not citizens before the Civil War. That was arguably wholly the intent of that particular reconstruction amendment.
And yet now it's used to grant citizenship to the babies of many impoverished illegal aliens who cross our borders and have children that we then have to provide for.
Interpretations and necessities of amendments change.
In actuality, and reality, I would have to disagree.
For the pure and simple fact that an individual right does in fact supercede government control or handling.
The Right to Bear Arms isn't a right which actually has to be written down anywhere for any reason. A person reserves the individual right to protect themselves and their life, and the life of their family by whatever means is necessary.
Guns are just a product of the U.S. Economy and one method for enforcing said right of protection. If you want to get into specific Guns? Then, I would say that those who are serving or served in the military would have unrestricted access to any Gun on the market, for personal or business use. Those who are untrained by the U.S. military would not have access to higher fire power, which is fine because there's no just cause for it. Paranoid thinking is irrelevant.
Everyone reserves the right to live their life how they choose to do so. Having said that, people are aware that Laws have been put into place for socialized reasons and to create a culture and community environment. Laws are not suppose to restrict rights, but are to govern those who choose to disrupt the harmony of the culture or community.
The problem is people don't understand their own life to begin with. Poor parenting has created children who will become a danger to society and even worse, these same people are going to breed.
Stupidity is just like wisdom, it's limitless. There are simply too many uneducated in the world, as a whole, much less in America. America pushing 15% poverty rate while people argue over stripping law biding citizens of their natural human rights is completely absurd.
We all have a natural right to arm ourselves. I wrote a Hub on the topic.
According to the actual wording, the well maintained militia has the guns and the right. In the days of the Continental Congress, the "militia" were citizens who would come to defend the nation. This started with the Minutemen, and today, exists as the National Gaurd. Since 2001, the Gaurd has been called upon to fight on foreign soil. This expands their role beyond historical parameters, due to the fact that our Regular standing army has been stripped down, little by little since Reagan. The absence of the National Gaurd adversely affected disaster response in New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina, and the Gulf Coast oil spill. The National Gaurd, historically have been first responders during time of disaster.
My only point is the following -
All Americans do unfortunately have the right to bear arms at this time, however, this right does not emanate directly from our Forefather's explicit, precisely worded and structured version of the "Constitution of the United States" - Moreover, it is not inherent -
The Constitution clearly states certain "Conditions" are attached which must be met and complied with prior to legal arms ownership - I.E. Enrollment and participation in the Military etc. - Otherwise, it may be considered "Technically Legal" in the eyes of current law as adjudicated and established by a biased panel of "Supreme Court Justices", however, it is still rendered "Unconstitutional" as stated by the drafters in the Amendment -
by Charlotte Gerber5 months ago
Should U.S. citizens continue to be able to have guns (assuming they carry a permit)? Hillary Clinton doesn't think so. There are several sides to this argument. One consideration should be that certain...
by The Truth2 years ago
Okay so another guy dresses up like The Joker and kills people. I will resist the urge to state how bizarre and coincidental that is and stick to the question.The media is intent on showing Americans all the LEGAL...
by cwoodman2075 years ago
Say we no longer have the right to bare arms. The government is doing a sweep collecting all registered firearms. Would you allow your right to go down the river or would you stand up to the regime and refuse? Either...
by WTucker7 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what...
by Fritz Isaacs3 years ago
Does the United States need to institute more gun control? Does the Second Amendment protect citizens gun rights? What is your interpretation?2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a...
by egiv6 years ago
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.