Question for Gun Owners see details below?*?

Question

Do you agree that the Second Amendment to our United States Constitution guarantees your individual right to own a gun, and that the Second Amendment is just as important as your other Constitutional Rights? Yes...or...NO....

Answer 1

Yes, I firmly believe the Second Ammendment guarantees any law-abiding citizen the right to keep and bear ams-and so does the Supreme Court.

In USA v. Miller the signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Therefore, the amendment (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) applies to the citizens of the United States.

Having established who the "militia" (in terms of the amendment) we move on to the next part-"being necessary to the security ofa free state". While it certainly is necessary to defend the country from invaders in the event of attack, the Second Amendment serves as a balance to a strong central government. This is a balance incorporated after the Constiiutional Convention of 1787. Section 8 Article 18 of the Constitution states that "Congress may enact laws necessary to enforce the Constitution". This critical statement opens the possibility of extended power with the elastic clause and foreshadows a loose interpretation of the Constitution To protect the citizens from what may be viewed as the possible abuses of power by the central government. By giving the people the means with which to overthrow the government, it empowers the citizenry to oppose abuses of power-and since the people had this power, the government is more likely not to abuse their power, in keeping with the original intent of the Revolutionary War,and the ideals upon which this country was founded.

The rest of the language of the amendment-"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" needs no explanation.

It should be noted that gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

The right to bear arms is nothing new. The Founding Fathers did not create the concept sustaining a right to bear arms, they merely incorporated that right into the Constitution of the United States. This right, as with many other rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, pre-dated colonial America. Of all the rights held or rejected by man and woman, this right, essential to self defense, may reach back to the dawn of humanity.

In 124 B.C. the Imperial Chancellor Kung-Sun Hung petitioned the Emperor Han to take the people's arms from them. The emperor replied: "Your subject has heard that when the ancients made the five kinds of weapons, it was not for the purpose of killing each other, but to prevent tyranny and to punish evil. When people lived in peace, these weapons were to be prepared against emergencies and to kill the fierce animals. If there were military affairs, then the weapons were used to set up defenses and form battle arrays…"
The petition was turned down, stressing the right of the individual to bear arms for the common protection of society and the individual.

Our Second Amendment right to bear arms has its direct antecedent in the English Bill of Rights.The right of citizens to be armed was not only unusual, but evolved in England in an unusual manner: it began as a duty. Military service was a common requirement to a superior, and usually, it was bring your own weapon. To prevent their troops from skimping on weaponry, laws evolved which described the types of weapons that the underlings would maintain. Not only were knights and free laymen required to keep and bear arms, their heirs were entitled to these weapons upon their death. These were the citizen soldiers, the medieval precursor of the militia. This military system was dictated by the fact that lords and monarchs lacked the financial resources to maintain standing armies and by the nature of obligated service common to the era. The value of citizen soldiers who viewed their service as a civic duty was recognized by the ancient Greeks and other civilizations. This value would take hold in 16th and 17th century England and later would sink deep roots in America.

Obviously, armed citizens serve as a deterrent to violent crimes. This has been demonstrated over and over, especially in states where "shall issue" permit laws have been enacted. Crime statistics bear out the fact that the more citizens are enabled to posess and carry firearms, the lower the crime rate. And the inverse is true-since outlawing handgun posession in Washington DC 31 years ago, murder and violent crime rates in the city rose drastically. The banning of firearm ownership in England has coincided with a use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

In Australia, International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999. Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent). Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent). In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country. WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story: Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Assaults are up 8.6 percent. Armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily. There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

Is the Second Amendment just as important as my other Constitutional Rights? I say the Second Amendment PRESERVES my other rights!

Answer 2

I'm a liberal, democratic voter. I feel that environment protection is extremely important and that global warming is very real. I will probably vote for Hillary. I feel that there should be a strict separation of church and state. I think the war in Iraq was a huge mistake, and that the Bush administration ranks in the bottom of America's history.

That said, to answer your question, YES!!!!

All constitutional rights, ESPECIALLY those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, are extremely, and equally important. Some may have more impact that others; I could argue the first amendment is the MOST important, but constitutional rights are constitutional rights and amendment two states that Americans have the right to bear arms. Enough said.

I don't own a gun. I never have, and never will. I have never even held one and I have no interest in it. I do not feel "safer" with a gun in my house. But taking away any constitutional right is never the answer. That right is guaranteed. And while I do agree that the necessity for responsible gun control is inevitable, I would never, ever support any legislation to take guns out of the hands of Americans based on that guaranteed, constitutional right. It is as guaranteed as my right to free speech, press and assembly.

Answer 3

When the framers of the Constitution meant individual rights, they used the words "the People." The Second Amendment says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't get much plainer than that. The Second Amendment is an individual right. Therefore, any law limiting or banning citizens from owning any firearm is unconstitutional.

Actually, I consider the Second Amendment to be more important that the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment gives the citizenry the teeth to remind government that the rest of our rights can be, should be, and will be defended by an armed citizenry.

All tyrants seek to disarm their subjects. The Second Amendments assures that we will remain citizens rather than become subjects.

Abrogation of the Second Amendment will set us firmly on the road to becoming a tyranny.

Doc

Answer 4

I believe that the second amendment guarantees a person's right to own a firearm from enemies, foreign and domestic. The statements the founding fathers made about firearms only stands to affirm this. If anyone read what Thomas Jefferson said in 'The Jefferson Papers', they'd know what I'm talking about. George Washington, also, was a supporter of private firearms ownership. A huge reason for this is that the original government of the colonies was run by the British, and had British troops stationed there. The solders were the only ones allowed to have guns, and if you remember, they did have a tendency to shoot unarmed civilians on a number of occasions. To insure that that never happened again, and to help preserve the constitution from someone getting elected and trying to grab more power than they should, they came to the conclusion that everyone should be armed, and able to stand up for themselves in that situation.

It can be argued, though, that they never intended for that to extend to modern firearms. If that were the case, then the same should be true about the other rights, as well. We shouldn't be able to apply freedom of speech to any invention made after 1776. We shouldn't have cars, since they're not outlined specifically in the constitution.

Also, without the Second Amendment, what's to keep the government from removing others as they see fit? And when they do that, what's to keep us from doing something about it? If you remember, the idea of a safe, disarmed populous is not new. It's been tried before. When Hitler tried it, it was a huge success in most areas, except Warsaw did have a few jews who refused to be quietly executed at concentration camps. Australia just recently enacted severe gun control, and look at their per-capita crime rate, it's going way up. Violent crime is at an all-time high, and nobody's able to defend themselves.

(Stampy: Here in the state of New York, it's legal to have semi-auto firearms, but no high capacity magazines, no pistols without a permit, and nothing that violates that stupid assault weapons ban, the same as the one that the federal government realized was a mistake after it was enacted.)

Answer 5

Yes it supports individual gun ownership.
It's the most misunderstood sentence of all time.
You have to understand the circumstance.
It DOES NOT mean the gun owner is the militia.
It first recognizes that a country requires an army for it's defense. A well organized militia.
The citizens of the new US, had just won a war to free them from WHAT?
From the abuses of the "well organized BRITISH militia",
who enforced taxation, and BRITISH RULE at the point of a musket.
The British had embarked on a program to DISARM THE COLONISTS, to make sure there could be no resistance from them when they were pushed around by the WELL ORGANIZED BRITISH MILITIA.
In creating a new government, we knew we'd need an army,
- a "MILITIA", to ensure the security of our free state from without.... But what about protecting our citizens from the abuse of their own army? World history of the age was ripe with examples of armies being turned into opressors of the populace by governments gone rotten. To ensure that citizens would have some defense against such a circumstance, the new federal government wanted to make it clear that the general population had the right to bear arms.
The wording of the sentence is archaic, and assumes the reader understands that before the revolution, the citizens of the US suffered under abuses FROM THEIR OWN (BRITISH) GOVERNMENT'S ARMY!
This was the reason for the revolution itself!
To prevent history from repeating itself on our shores, we decided our citizens should be armed to defend their freedom from any threat, even the threat of opression from their own militia.
so, that would be a YES.

Answer 6

Yes I agree..... but it is sad that a few states have already stomped out the 2nd amendment right to their citizens..... and in Washington DC they have banned all guns which totally violates the 2nd Amendment right.... states like NY, NJ, CA and MD are impossible to own anything other than a single shot firearm..... these politicians need to get a life instead of rewriting the rites of the American citizens.....

Answer 7

Yes, I do agree.
1. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the defining rights of a free man.
2. The PEOPLE are to be in control of the military, not the military in control of the people. That is why the Second states the the MILITIA is to be well regulated, not arms, not the people, the militia. The right to keep and bear arms was added in large part due to the fears that the Federal Government would form a special militia under their power to raise and train Armies. It has happened, it is called the National Guard.

Answer 8

Gun bans would have ZERO effect on terrorists' ability to commit acts of violence, except maybe make it easier for them to do so, as has been pointed out above. I'm sure any terrorist would love to see such legislation passed here, just like I am sure they are enjoying all the fighting going on now about missing CIA tapes and the banning of waterboarding. After all, anything which the enemies (the ones in Washington and hollywood, not the middle east) of our military can do to assist the real enemies of this country, they seem to be doing.

Answer 9

That's what I'm SURE our founding forefathers intended, no matter WHAT the bleeding-heart libertard Demacrack socio-crats in D.C. are trying to perpetrate. . . . . . . .

The Second Amendment was meant to assure ALL Americans the way to defend and guarantee the continuance of ALL our other freedoms. . . . . . .
And this is what Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, & Co. are SCARED SHITELESS OF! ! ! !

"An Armed Man is a CITIZEN, an Unarmed Man is a SLAVE!"

Answer 10

Yes

Answer 11

im proud to be an american, and im proud to live in a country that has a constitution. i love having rights. i think thats the right to own a gun is important, and that the right to free media is a joke.


if all the gun owners in the US revolted against the corupted media i think we might have something.....


just a thought