How many Second Amendment Supporters do we have out there?

Question

General comments, opinions welcome.

Answer 1

The Fearsome Second Amendment:
People's Rights vs. Tyrants' Ambitions

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/12/08/dorothy.htm

Now just read these words. You will recognize the document (I hope) as the Declaration of Independence, and then we will look at the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But first, consider these statements:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

Institute new government? Isn't that what the American Revolution did? It tossed off the yoke of King George III and formed a new nation based on a radical concept ... that government exists solely with the consent of the governed.

The founding fathers were well aware of the nature of tyrants to take over and make slaves of the sheeple, and realized that man's tendency to follow one or more deceivers back into slavery would ever be a present danger to the constitutional republic that they had established. Thus, the Bill of Rights, the statement of what government may not do, places freedom of religion, speech and the press first, along with the right of peaceable assembly, and then proceeds to the second matter of importance to the people's power to retain their freedom:

Amendment II
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.

Have you ever heard the liberal camp yell with college-game volume that "well-regulated militia" means that the government and only the government has the right to keep and bear arms (possess guns). It is well nigh the bumper-sticker and yard-sale sign of the antigun crowd, those who would divest Americans of any and all rights of self-protection other than dialing 911 and hoping the police appear before a thug fires HIS gun. Since the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, a very popular bumper sticker, out west at least, has disappeared. It reads, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Perhaps it is only an "outlaw" government and those who would outlaw the Bill of Rights (in practice, not in legislative action like persons of integrity who do things up front) that would even consider "gun control" as the solution to any problems with nuts who wrongfully use guns ... or box cutters, knives, clubs, hammers or other weapons to commit homicide.

No government that is committed to the freedoms of the people presented by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights would ever consider abrogating the Second Amendment. It would be at the top of the agenda of a renegade government that wished to retain all power over the people ... people whose rights include changing their government should it become oppressive and tyrannical, an enemy of freedom, and a stronghold of a power elite.

Answer 2

I'm one.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution specifically 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.”

My contention, based on the sentence structure of the Second Amendment, the definition of “Militia” in the 18th century, and the way of life in 18th century America, is that the Amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess firearms.

How so? The sentence as it reads does not restrict the lawful ownership of guns to members of the militia. It merely gives that particular rationale for not using the Constitution to attempt to take away that right. There are many other good reasons to own gus; those who drafted this particular amendment chose the militia argument because it had to do with government service.

The definition of “Militia” was very broad in 18th century America. In effect, it included all able-bodied adult males within certain broad age limits. This definition excluded women, the elderly, youth, and the infirm. All other men were expected to own at leas one rifle, to practice shooting and close-order drills with their neighbors, and to be prepared to answer the call to arms when given by the appropriate public officials. This definition of “Militia” indicates that the Second Amendment existed not only to place a well-honored freedom under Constitutional protection, but also to ensure a large supply of well-trained, well-armed soldiers.

And finally, 18th century America was an overwhelmingly rural society. Save for a few small cities on the coast, the new nation was a frontier (in the American sense of the word). As we know from Westerns, a man with a gun represented the Law—and the Law may be legislated and executed by him off-the-cuff when need be. On the frontier, people hunt, engage in target practice and competitions, and defend their home with guns. From these facts, we can intuit that the drafters of the Second Amendment would have been wholly incapable of even dreaming of a future society without guns; they were so much a part of everyday life.

I believe that those who wish to make the purchase, ownership, and use of guns illegal in America would have to first gather support from millions of Americans in an effort to ratify a new Constitutional amendment abrogating the Second Amendment. That’s the only way they could possibly achieve their ends legally. Could this be done? Should it? I seriously doubt it.

I suspect that this is why most gun control advocates avoid the issue and attempt to get their way through legislation. The only gun control supporter I know of who called for repeal of the Second Amendment was Michael Kinsley, late of CNN’s “Crossfire.” (Ironic name, yes?)
This was a brave move on his part. He was no hypocrite. But, I wonder how many gun control advocates winced when they heard him say his piece?

It’s likely that America, which has ceased being a frontier society many generations ago, will never repeal the Second Amendment, even though the percentage of people owning and using guns will continue to drop as we become more citified and suburbanized. That’s fine with me. This merely means that not all coercive force rests in government hands.

Answer 3

I believe in the right to bear arms. Most of what we see and hear on the news ends up being the only knowledge we have when it comes to the bad things about gun ownership.

We're never told of the times when a man or woman was able to fend off an attacker with the use of a firearm. How would you feel if you couldn't fend off an intruder who wanted to do harm to your family in your own home?

You can look at Randy Weaver and people might say he had a heck of alot of guns. So What. Did he go around killing people?

Let's look at Waco, Texas. David Koresh had alot of guns but yet when they could have arrested him while walking the streets, they didn't.

Instead, they ramrodded the place where they lived with tanks. Right here in America! All they had on him (without verifiable evidence) was that he was molesting kids.

Whatever happened to trial by jury?

You can argue all you want that he deserved what he got until it happens to you for disagreeing with our government. Then, and only then will you understand how our government really and truly destroys our constitutional rights.

Here's the crazy thing--I don't even own a single gun. I'm not saying it wasn't sad what happened at any school (or any incident involving guns), however; we have a constitution for a reason and everyday, we lose more and more of our rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Answer 4

Yup, I support the 2nd amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

If you don't like guns, then don't own one.

The fundamental question is that either you believe you have a fundamental right to provide a measure of security for yourself and family, or you do not, and believe you should be totally reliant on the government for security. If you agree with the latter, then move to another country, because the USA isn't for you.

Answer 5

It is hard to find someone who would want someone to buy a gun like it was buying a gallon of milk. People in the NRA support laws that help keep guns out the hands of criminals, but still allow law-abiding citizens to have them. Just incase you need help on this issue research what has happened in Florida when they allowed people to carry concealed weapons if they passed licensing requirements. Crime has gone down.

Answer 6

Not many.
Many people are pro-gun, they want people to be able to hunt and target shoot and things like this. They normally do not understand the 2A properly.
Many people will say that there is a RKBA and it must be kept because it will lead to the long slippery slope towards bad government.
However when someone comes out and says that homosexuals should be treated equally under the law with hetrosexuals, most people who claim their "rights" will turn around and ignore "rights" while they say that it will destroy the institution of marriage (as if 50% divorce rate of hetorsexuals wasn´t doing it already).

So saying that you support the 2A does not mean that much any more, usually it means someone does not understand the 2A.

Answer 7

Count me in as a second amendment supporter. It was designed to keep the government under control and this government needs that more than any in several years.

Answer 8

I support the second Amendment. It is the only thing that protects the American people form our own government.

Answer 9

If we actually had the right to bear arms and people chose to do so, that VA tech shooter wouldn't have gotten the chance to reload a minimum of 10 times.

Answer 10

Just got me a new shot-gun!

Woohoo!

I support the Constitution.

Good people should never be the fodder for bad people who wish to reap lives.