why should I give my right to bear arms away?

Question

why must I recieve criticism on my right to bear arms, when I cannot criticise right to free speech , right to free religeon, or right to freedom of the press? DOES IT SCARE YOU???? what gives you more constitutional rights than me?

Answer 1

While the Liberals take your gun rights away, their guns are safely locked up at home

Answer 2

You shouldn't. As long as you have a permit and know the proper way of keeping a gun away from a child....and don't have it loaded in your nightstand, then why should you?

There was a study once, where a little town in the mid-west of USA, made sure EVERY house had a gun. NOT ONE THEFT took place! They had the lowest crime rate. I'm so sorry I can't back this up with the specific town, but I was working for Congress at the time and it had to be the early 1990s.

Look either NO guns with NO possibility of the bad guys getting them through the black market and other means (stealing) or go ahead and sleep at night knowing your protected.

The guns that people sell on the street is ridiculous. Obviously those have been stolen or black market. All those school killings were middle class white boys who had parents disengaged in their childrens' lives.

So keep your gun(s). Just make sure you register them (for your own protection) and keep them safe AND know how to use and clean it (them).

Answer 3

I am assuming you are American. When your constitution was written the right to bear arms was added to protect against the possibility of the British coming back, being attached by bandits or wild natives, things like that. Also the arms in question were rifles and pistols, not M-16 and rocket launchers. I was born and raised in Canada where it is legal to have a rifle or a pistol as long as you have a permit. I do not see why this idea is so scary to people? It does maintain your constitutional rights.

I would like to know though why you would like to criticize free press or freedom or speech? If it wasn't for those things you wouldn't be able to be saying this stuff right now.

Answer 4

It is interesting to see the various perspectives concerning the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, many of which demonstrate a very light understanding of history and Constitutional positions.

First, there is no “Constitutional” Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Individual Right preceding the ratification of the Constitution. The only reference to this right is in the Second Article of the ratified Bill of Rights. This amendment is not the statement declaring a right, but rather (as are the first eight articles of the Bill of Rights) an exclusionary amendment. That is, it excludes the federal government from doing a specific act, in this case the federal government is excluded from infringing on the peoples’ preexisting right to keep and bear arms.

Two additional things are important to note at this point:
First, it excluding the federal government from “infringing” on this right. The federal government is not simply excluded from passing a law, rather, the federal government is more strongly restricted from doing anything touches on the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms. With this wording a case could easily be made that even laws emanating from the Commerce Clause controlling sales of items across borders are not valid if they infringe in any manner on the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms.

Secondly, the wording of the Second Amendment most often seen today is incorrect, that is, currently it is most often written as:

“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 correct syntax of how it was proposed and ratified (re: Library of Congress for copies of original documents) is:

“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 second and correct version parses a very different meaning from the first and incorrect version. In short, in the second version the phrase to the left of the single comma is a dependant clause which has no meaning by itself and is completely dependant on the phrase to the right of the single comma which is a declaratory statement which has full and complete meaning by itself. In short, the declaratory phrase “is” the meaning of the Second Amendment.

As of 1868 and the application of the fourteenth Amendment as used by the federal government, that exclusion also applies to State Governments.

This perspective also applies to the writings and intent of the Founders. While such an intent includes personal defense, it is specifically the last line of the peoples’ defense relative to an overly intrusive general government. That is a federal government acting in an extra-Constitutional manner

In terms of personal defense, the best studies, those that do not assume facts and focus on the county level of every State, project an annual figure of about 2,000,000 uses of firearms to lessen crime. This covers from the simple demonstration of being armed to the actual defensive use of a firearm.

If you are referring to a governmental taking of the right to keep and bear arms, on the surface of seeking Constitutional protect, you should have nothing to worry about. However, it is also true that the United Nations is working very hard to remove the legal ownership of every country in the world including the United States. Will the United Nations succeed? That possibility is very, very, real..

Answer 5

How 'bout the fact that thousands of people are killed every year in gun accidents. Then there are the school shootings. And the fact that the gangsters of our communities are better armed then the police! The only solid solution is to rid the world of guns!
People like You scare me! I'm good with the rest of my constitutional rights.

Did it EVER cross your mind that the constitution was written when 98% of our country was wilderness. And in order to survive the Indians & the wild animials a person needed a gun. This is 2006 - hello! Guns beget Trouble! And Death.

Answer 6

Do not ever give your right to bear arms up!!! we never will.!!! the day we stop this crazy lunatic will be soon I promise. I am a grandmother never been in trouble in my life before. I bet soon I am arrested for some trumped up charge watch this forum I trust no press as they have sold out years ago we have been getting only the news they want us to.Please every one be ready I think they will cheat on the election next month and it will not fly this time we know. Be ready to fight for your rights because I think our last free election was when we elected Clinton. We are in trouble now we find out if ours really is the home of the brave, because it will only be the land of the free as long as it is still the home of the brave.

Answer 7

Who is asking you to give up your "Constitutional" right to bear arms? Who is it that you claim has made criticism? Your question draws a blank. I am far more concerned About the Government recording my phone conversations and reading this mail and my personal mail, as they do now under Republicans. A full 88 Senators voted to renew the "patriot act". Most of the Republicans support Bush's plan to arrest without warrant, confine and move Americans to another country and use "torture" as a means to deal with "enemy combatants" of the State". No way is the Government ever going to get my guns and no way will they ever get a registration. Hey NSI, just kiddin ya, i have no guns.

Answer 8

Observer, for your information, there are numerous accounts of weapon wielding people defending their home, property and family. Unfortunately, you only find these articles in magazine and papers that hunters/ shooters subscribe to. The "free" media (news, papers, radio) only reports on items that fall in line with their agenda, or political affiliation. That's sad, but true. I remember one story of a 74 year old grandmother that shot and killed an individual that was breaking into her home. She was protecting herself, her house/property, and her 3 grandchildren that were staying with her. No charges were filed.

I am an avid hunter/shooter, and will fight tooth and nail to keep and bear my arms. I don't believe we need new/more laws, what we need is a judicial system that can enforce the laws we currently have.

Answer 9

I live in a country that has no citizenship right to bear arms, i live in a country that banned golf because it interferred with the archery practice on a sunday, that was in 1444 to 1570,I dont know what the statisics are for gun related crime in your country, thats your problem, but when you get idiots selling weapons to children ,does not that scare you ,just a little. THE constitution guarantees your right to free speech and to practice your worship of your god, what it also protects are the rights of others not to be oppressed for thier colour or creed, they also have the same right as you to exsist, that includes being shot or beaten to a pulp with batons by the forces you employ to protect those same constitutional rights. mankind not just your country has a real problem with weapons getting into the hands of the less desirable element of our citizens, surely you must agree some reform of the free for all policy that you now have, if only for the sake of your future children, in some european countries the citizens are armed by the elected goverment, they have a armed militia force, yet gun crime in those countries is compared to yours non exsistent, yet they live with thier weapons, they do not have the right to carry a weapon on the street, only for defense purposes when the order has been issued, In my country we not have the same right to carry arms, we now have a dual police force ,some armed some not, we do not have conscription, we have a small proffessional army that has a reputation for its proffessionalism, we have an increasing gun related crime ,due to the influx of immigrants, who bring thier attitude to the value of a human life, with them, to concur you should not give up your right to defend yourself ,your home,your family, but neither should you have the right to take anothers life because he committed a crime against you, the police have a duty to uphold the law, for all, not just the bits you like. regards LF

Answer 10

Right to bear arms is a crooked idea and mostly guns are not used for defense, just offense. How many times u hear that some one killed because of defense.