Right to Keep and bear Arms

[Guest JF_Sly]

Well everyone, this always seems to be a subject that can draw a lot of debate and discussion so I thought that I would start a thread and get everyone's opinion.

 

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution has the following:

 

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.

 

 

There continues to much debate and challenges to laws based on this amendment. Most recently, The U.S. Supreme Court on 29th of September 2009 decided to review (granted certiorari) McDonald V. Chicago (a case similar to NRA v. Chicago).

 

So what is your opinion on this controversial subject?

 

Should average citizens have the right to keep/own firearms (or weapons)? Does the government (federal/state/local) have the right to regulate and to what extent a person's ability to own/gary weapons?

 

Personally, I believe that the 2nd amendment does provide the right to keep/own weapons to the average citizen (U.S.). I do believe that the government does have some rights to regulate this though (i.e. not allow convicted fellons, mentally ill, those that pose a clear danger to themselves/others from owning weapons).

 

I also believe that anytime there is some type of situation that occurs involving guns, everyone is to eager to blame it on the guns/gun manufactures and holler for more restrictive gun control. I understand the outrage but believe that it is misplaced, it should be directed at the individual(s) that perpitraed the action, not the means in which they chose to do it. In most instances, the guns used were obtained illegally, so forcing more regulation on the average citizen gun owners is punishing those that abide by the regulations and does nothing to stop those that obtained them illegally in the first place.

 

 

Some claim that the 2nd amendment is intended only to be used in terms of a militia. There are many definitions of Militia:

 

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

 

While all these in some way mention military (soldiers), it does not necessarily mean service in military. I believe the initial intent of a militia was for citizens to be able to provide for protection of themselves, their homes, and their community/state as needed. Becasue this is a continous duty we have as citizens, we would not be able to carry it out if we did not have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

 

This does not mean that individuals should not be trained in the proper handleing, use, care, storage of weapons, They should.

 

Some Advocates say with more regualtion there would be les guns, thus reduced crime rates. However the state of Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws/regulations (i.e anyone can carry a concealed firearm without a permit) and yet has the third lowest crime rate in the nation.

 

Just some things to ponder....

[RobertBC_us]

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.

It's funny that everywhere throughout the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and The Bill of rights that "," is understood as a separator within the text. For some, this seam to be confusing, into thinking this one insistence it's just a pause or worse yet to relate "the people" with "Militia". Militias are a group, a group of people but still a group. People may be apart of Militias, but Militias may not be apart of people. People are individuals, free and clear of any associations and bindings. Jefferson clearly stated this in the Declaration of Independence when saying "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.". How can anyone have Life or Liberty not to even mention the right to pursue Happiness, Without being able to defend yourself?

 

Homeschoolers and people being schooled prior to the turn of the 20_th century had a great advantage over our public school system. They could, and often did, learn from teachings of people like Lao-tzu of the late sixth century BC until president. While our public school system purchases works that are copyrighted. How are you going to copyright Shakespeare, Frost, Twain or De Vinci?

[Mokothemonkey]

Well, I don't really like the idea that people could walk around with an AK strapped to their back.

 

Owning them is fine, but I think they should be kept out of public places other than gun ranges, stores, etc etc

 

Just my opinion