I agree except the right to bear arms doesn't mean to own a gun. The supreme court said a man could have hunted for food everyday of his life and would not of been said to bear arms.

Can you site that exact case?

Keep guns.
Ban people.

You are incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms means ownership.

The Washington Post on the ruling by the Supreme Court

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service. "

Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who lost both her parents in that shooting, had left her gun in her car, because she couldn't legally carry in Texas. If she had her gun, she could have ended the massacre very quickly.

Fear of criminal activity is no reason to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. The solution is more guns in more law abiding citizens hands.

Vermont allows all citizens to carry handguns without permits. They are ranked 49th in the USA for crimes commited and 47th for murders committed.



So my question to everyone who opposes guns is this: Why do you want women to be raped and people to be murdered, robbed or assaulted?

I keep my guns.
I don't rely on just them for home and personal security.
I got my baseball bat, bowie knife, piano wire and chain ta' boot!

No I am not. United states vs Miller. It is much closer to the language used to write the bill because the case is more than70 years older.

I don't think it requires a degree in rocket science to interpret the simple language and intent of our founding fathers and the documents that serve as the basis of our great nation. The only ones who wish to complicate the issue are those who wish to oppose the precepts and principles in our constitution.

I disagree. Its a historical fact that the meanings of words change over time. The founding fathers put this right in because England (their former country) was disarming their citizens so they could not rise up against the throne. Our founding fathers wanted us to be able to rise up against the government if the need arose. That was the purpose of this right. It was not to defend yourself against other citizens.

With todays technology its practically moot. We can't rise up and defend ourself against the government if they went totally corrupt.

That doesn't change the meaning of the 2nd amendment. It's still the law of the land. The USA is a republic, which means we are ruled by laws, not people. If people think the way you do, they have the right to propose an amendment to do away with the 2nd Amendment.

Your interpretation is odd to say the least. The supreme court has ruled that the original intent of the "right to bear arms" is the right of self protection by keeping (owning) and bearing (using) guns. It doesn't matter if that is from robbers, terrorists, or the US government.

The military has sworn to uphold the constitution so it would be unlikely to turn against citizens reacting to a corrupt takeover. In fact, it would be obligated to join in on the citizen's side.

Your interpretation is odd to say the least. The supreme court has ruled that the original intent of the "right to bear arms" is the right of self protection by keeping (owning) and bearing (using) guns. It doesn't matter if that is from robbers, terrorists, or the US government.

The military has sworn to uphold the constitution so it would be unlikely to turn against citizens reacting to a corrupt takeover. In fact, it would be obligated to join in on the citizen's side.


Alas, a voice of reason.

i don't have a problem with people owning guns if they have them for the right reasons,protection purposes cause even a gang member has to protect himself from his rival

Other supreme court cases have ruled that it is the right to have guns in a militia. That is why I cited The United States vs Miller. I am not saying I am against owning guns. I am merely arguing the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Yes the militia would fight on the citizens side. That is my point. Citizens with guns would not be able to take on the US military.

Our Supreme court has made plenty of rulings that are clearly in opposition and defiance of our Constitution. There is not supposed to be any legislating from the bench in this country. The courts are way out of control and the citizens need to take a stand against it.

My point being that Bear arms doesn't mean own a gun. That was also the supreme courts opinion based on the language used in the 1700s. They even considered putting "for the common defense" after bear arms.

I respectfully disagree.

You can disagree with my opinion. That's all well and good. The last two points are fact though

Facts don't impress me. Truth does.

Actually not. The supreme court decides the meaning of the constitution (a fact) and have ruled that it does indeed mean that the citizens have the right to gun ownership (another fact).