EDITORIAL: The right to arm

After having granted new and amazing rights to partisan combatants last week, it would be sadly ironic if the Supreme Court this week takes basic Bill of Rights privelages away from law-abiding citizens.

Gun rights of the individual are the foundation of this country and is what will keep it free. Please Consider:Support The Montana Resolution Now So We Might Have A Place To Go If Sen. Obama Is Elected And We Become A Collective Led By The Extreme Left Shepherding Those of Us Who Cherish Our Individual Rights and Responsibilities. AT: http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/support-the-montana-resolution-now-so-we-might-have-a-place-to-go-if-sen-obama-is-elected-and-we-become-a-collective-led-by-the-extreme-left-shepherding-those-of-us-who-cherish-ours-individual-rights/

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. Regardless of the legal double talk, it does not say the right of the militia to bear arms, it says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. Why was amendment placed in front of amendments 3 and 4. Why? So we would have a way to protect ourselves. We are a nation surrounded by a world cf consensus without compliance. If that 2nd amendment right is removed, how many Serpico's are out there to protect you. It took him years. Can we wait that long? It should take a constitutional referendum to remove it, not the interpretation of nine people.

The way things are going we may have to exercise our second amendment rights against the government just to get them to open up drilling for more oil in this country.

"Most Americans believe that owning a gun is the right of every citizen." Every citizen? Even those who have are medically determined to be insane? And infants? Joseph Goebbels lives!

I also believe that right to own and bear should not be offended by any city, town, county or state law. They cannot supercede The Constitution at their pleasure. I do believe that in many cases the interpretations are lax or misintended. I own firearms, I have permits, I have no felonie or other convictions. I believe that The Constitution has meaning. However, I do not agree with gun show sales, bulk sales and the sales of and for true weapons different then those of personal protection. An AK47, TEC9, M16 / AR15 or any other fully automatic capable is not about personal protection. Weapons that require propellants other then gunpowder such as rocket propelled grenades are not withing the scope imagined by our founders. Frankly weapons with capacities greater then perhaps nine rounds are no longer defensive but offensive. There is no room for socialism and the BHO agenda. If BHO wants to reduce gun crimes then prosecute the criminals not legitimate gun owners. The DC law is another like Chicago and improper. Research the FL FBI street battle. It was a civilian gun opeartor that came to the agents aid stopping those in offense with what should be illegal weapons.

The comments posted by "doublehook" are an exact copy from the Obama Campaign's playbook on undermining the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Here we have support for a ban on magazines that hold more than nine rounds, and implication that AR15 rifles are fully-automatic [machine guns], which they are not. Furthermore, "doublehook" goes so far as to propose violation of the First Amendment right to assembly by stating a desire to end gun shows. While it is clearly arguable that the "arms" protected by the Second Amendment are only those that could or would be man-portable and affordable to the common citizen, they also MUST be effective in both defense of the individual (and his or her family) and of utility in service to the State. Thus, "protected arms" most certainly include any sort of military-issue or police-style rifle or pistol that is or was manufactured. To limit the magazine capacity of a firearm is like putting a limit on the number of gallons a car's fuel tank might hold. To limit the features of a firearm (such as the type of stock or muzzle fittings it might have) is tantamount to outlawing leather seats or pin-stripes on an automobile. These concepts are absurd, they only hurt law-abiding gun owners (because all bans only disarm the law-abiding), and they clearly "infringe" the rights protected by the Second Amendment. In the final analysis, ask police firearms instructor about the types of restrictions that she would like to see on the firearms and firearms features permitted to her officers, and that will tell you exactly what sort of firearms are "suitable" for self-defense. The arms needs of the police officer, alone on the beat, are no different than the arms needs of a law-abiding citizen about his or her lawful business. The arms needs of the individual National Guard Infantryman are no different than the needs of the lawful citizenry (the People)as legally defined the U.S. Code as the "militia" (those same People mentioned in the Constitution a few times).

It's amazing to me the number of people who know nothing of what they speak yet continue to blabber on with opinions on how the rest of us should fall into line with their way of thinking or emotional hand wringing. If you're going to quote history then at least understand it. How many Jews were executed because they had no way to defend themselves. What happened - gun confiscation.

I would think the Right of the People, as in American Citizens, to own guns unencumbered by cities, states or the Federal Government would be self-evident. That even a minority of our people would deny us that right is indeed a sad commentary. Fear of guns and gunowners does show the power of bad TV news shows, movies and TV dramas as well as dishonest politicians. All the self defense articles and arguments are true and fine and need to be repeated. But that so many of our people do not understand their basic rights is the sadest. But then there is a large body of Leftist who do do away with our Constitution period. But the right to self defense is Innate and not subject to the rule of men. Let us all hope for the best for the people in D.C and for us all.

I truly believe that doublehook is VERY confused in his/her opinion. It is the right of every law abiding (and sane) person to defend themselves. It is the right to arm yourself with whatever tool you feel is needed to protect yourself and your family. Think about it people who would be giving up the guns if they were outlawed????????? Let me tell you, it would be the law following people and NOT the actual criminals. Look at the crime rate in DC. It is higher than almost ALL other states and territories. If you want to look at the numbers (wait why would we want to do that) Sweden has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Why could that be, hum??? Well maybe it is because almost every house in Sweden has a firearm ready to go, and if you break in you are going to get shot. Could that be a deterrent, um MAYBE!!!

If the meaning of the Second Amendment can be changed by reinturpratation then all of our rights can be taken from us the same way. Besides removing guns from the hands of lawabiding citizens won't reduce crime, Britain has almost total gun control and has a higher rate of gun crmie then the US, think on this one for a while.

"Weapons that require propellants other then gunpowder such as rocket propelled grenades are not withing the scope imagined by our founders." The Constitution say nothing about what TYPES of arms are allowed, it states that ALL arms are allowed. This not only includes guns, but swords, knifes, spears, clubs, and even sticks and stones if necessary. It includes anything that can be used as a weapon to defend oneself from harm. What part of this don't you understand? As far as the Founding Fathers limiting rights to the technologies of their day, the Founding Fathers were nether fools nor idiots and they understood that time brings changes to technology. You can't limit rights as being dependent upon on what technology existed in the past. If this were true, then the our right to freedom of speech would not be expanded to include modern equipment like radios, tv's computer blogs, etc. Our right as enumerated in the Constitution are eternal, no matter what level of technological advancement we may achieve in the future. Only a fool would assume otherwise.

A voice from the founding era: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right? The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -- Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 and another: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 and another: "The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2 and another: "Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)

It all boils down to this; Governments have powers, citizens have rights. The Founders intended the powers of the government to be determined by and over seen but the citizens. To insure that end we have our constitution and its bill of rights. Nowhere in ether document are the "Rights" of the government elaborated.

It all boils down to this; Governments have powers, citizens have rights. The Founders intended the powers of the government to be determined by and over seen but the citizens. To insure that end we have our constitution and its bill of rights. Nowhere in ether document are the "Rights" of the government elaborated. Benjamin Franklin was asked " What kind of government have you given us?" "A Republic if you can keep it" Decide for yourself how well we've done.