Why so much resistence to the 2nd amendment, these days?

Question

Gov't stats show that guns owned by law abiding citizens are used more than criminals use their illegal guns. Citizens who defend their lives and property keep the crime stats down, there is NO room to interpret these facts, make LEGAL guns go away and only the crooks have guns and a bigger pool of victims!
"being necessary to the security of a free State", and prohibits Congress from infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
you cannot keep an arm (gun or other form of weapon) if it is taken from you, and bearing it means carrying it upon one's person.
The leftist rant, now is that this is a collective right and not an individual right
how does that follow as it is nested in 9 PERSONAL rights and NOT self described to be different than the intended holder of said right?
Why do the anti gun people have ARMED security, if they are SO against the right to keep and bear arms?

To those that do think that the type of firearm should be limited:
You should consider that it is next to impossible to throw down an oppressive government (YES, I advocate that, following our founding father's example, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War), when the government has, at its disposal the following:
1. Fully automatic firearms
2. flamethrowers
3. war planes
4. warships
5. chemical weapons
6. Bombs
7. grenades
8. tanks

Being limited to a muzzle-loading musket would be rather useless in any armed conflict against a war machine so armed and the mechanized efforts of said oppressive government would be all but unstoppable.
Would I be comfortable with my neighbor having an atom bomb?
NO, but his use of such a device would probably kill him, too. That would limit his desire to use it.
as for automatic weapons, if there is to be armed combat, it is going to be needed to fight fire(arms) with fire(arms)

Our friend, Brooklyn, is a fine example of what the left does-reading only PART of the amendment. The keeping of a well maintained militia is not the whole of the amendment.
As for his errant claim of guns NOT being neded to assure anyone of their rights?
WRONG. Every year the rights of Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happines are threatened and defended, by guns. Every time a mugger, rapist or murderer is stopped by the bullet of a law abiding person and his/her gun.

It is so tired, the picture of the redneck, ignorant, gun toting loonie that the left insists is the average gun owner/user
Even worse is the ASSUMPTION that anyone who wants to or already owns a gun is a person will, inevitably, cause problems with said gun.
The law abiding are so with or without their choice of gun ownership and a criminal is a criminal, no matter what
removing the rights of the lawfull will never stop, but aid, the criminal

Answer 1

Recently a couple of rulings have been upheld or passed:

"A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope."

And

Georgia's Sweeping legislation http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb998.htm
What gets me is that most uneducated, not necessarily anti 2nd amendment, still think a semi-auto is an assault rifle. The definition of an assault rifle is that it is selective fire. Can I own a full auto legally, Of course, if I want to pay the licensing fees.
Besides I need my guns to overthrow the Gov't when they get out of hand. (Rapidly approaching......)
BTW Brooklyn, you'll also notice the Constitution forbids a standing army. What happened to that part??

Answer 2

After the first gun control law was passed it was all over for individual gun ownership in America. From the first sprang more laws and even more still. Few were ever repealed... It is a war of attrition of which the outcome has already been decided under the current course.

Answer 3

Please, everyone above me know this! Our founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution so that all other Amendments may be heard. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizenry of this country the rights to life, liberty and property free from a tyrannical government, period! Our founding fathers knew that throughout the history of civilization that an unarmed populace was a populace enslaved. Michael Moore and Charlton Heston conveniently left out this important fact!

Answer 4

They are idots what else can it be? I bet you they all would change their tune once their family member was killed by an intruder that may have been stopped had their family member had a gun. They need deprogramming and otherwise should just be ignored.

Answer 5

I used to be against the 2nd amendment, but one day when I was home alone (and a kid) one of my new neighbors came to our door and said she loved me and tried coming in. I didn't know who she was at the time (since they had just moved in), but it turns out she was an alcoholic (or so they say... I think she was high too). Luckily they just rented the house and moved out a month later.

Now I strongly support the 2nd amendment. I'd gladly shoot an alcoholic neighbor that tried telling me they loved me :-D Plus we need something to keep illegals out.

Answer 6

the 2nd amendment is constantly misinterpreted, and here it is again. it refers to "WELL REGULATED MILITIAS" well, that might have made sense in 1776 but it makes no sense now.

guns should be illegal. they do nothing to protect anyones rights.

Answer 7

Citizens have no reason to have automatic weapons but they have a reason to have anything non-automatic that is what i think.

Answer 8

"Any Government that has the power to give you what you want, has the power to take whatever you have"

Barry Goldwater

Answer 9

Good question.

Answer 10

Your next drink is on me friend. Well said.