View more polls
July 1, 2010 - 10:19pmPermalink
It seems to me that the constitution is the building the American people built our democracy on, and the Bill of Rights is the foundation of the building. So if we allow the foundation to be taken away from our building, then we are desiring our building to be torn down and thrown into the wind. As for me, well, I only have a few firearms that are still functional, and with me they will stay, cleaned, oiled, and polished....just like the Bill of Rights told me to keep them. Thank you and may God bless one and all of you children of God. your brother, David J. Mourey.
July 1, 2010 - 10:34pmPermalink
What most people are missing is that by citing the 14th Ammendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that any regulation the Federal Behemoth makes regarding gun control (i.e. ban on "assault weapons") trumps any state law. So, if the tyrannical fed says that a "well regulated militia" only applies to the national guard. Or that "shall not be infringed" could be "re-interpreted" to mean that anything over .33 caliber isn't really an infringement, the states can do nothing about it.
The ban on hand guns in Chicago is perfectly constitutional. It's wrong and immoral, but each state has the right to pass its own stupid laws. If you don't like it, you can move. If Chairman Maobama decides to make up laws, there's no way to get away shy of leaving the country.
Once again, the federal government has subtly and cleverly grasped more power, and we're none the wiser.
July 1, 2010 - 10:36pmPermalink
The 2nd Amendment was writen at a time when the U.S. had no standing army. The way the amendment is writen show's that the purpose of the civilry to keep and bear arm's was for the defense of the colonies. The amendment is made out of a two part sentense - NOT two differnt sentences like a lot of people try to read it. There has to be a common-sence limit to the private keeping of firearms. I know several people who I would not like to see in posession of a firearm, yet there is no "legal" reason to prevent them from having one. Another thing that scares me about this is - Why does the National Rifal Association demand the right to keep and bear Machineguns? These are weapons of mass destruction and ment for military purposes only. Bolt-action, and pump-action weapons yes; but NO civilian has any need for automatic or semi-automatic weapons! These were ment for militatry operations and should not be in the hands of private citizens!!!
July 2, 2010 - 1:39amPermalink
I am a Navy Veteran. I lived in the District of Criminals! The only people who had guns were the criminals! The crime rate in these kinds of cities is higher than those where guns are legal.
And, the right to bear arms shouldn't be up to the candy asses in Congress! If you start to modify our Constitutional Rights then where does it stop?
I've also lived in parts of the country where having guns was almost mandatory and no one would dare rob a liquor or convenience store because they would have gotten their asses shot off!
In addition to that, I'm a woman and have had a gun pointed at me...for no good reason. If I'd had a gun at the time that probably wouldn't have happened. That coward most likely would have thought twice.
And, it is true that guns don't kill people. People kill people.
If you want to ADD an amendment that actually protects us, ask your Congressmen/women to modify who can surveil our private lives. Better keep the guns!
July 2, 2010 - 2:43amPermalink
When our forefathers created the Constitution, they had the insight to recognize that in time all government grows to be greater than the people it is supposed to represent. So they built safeguards to prevent the oppression they suffered under British rule, and made insurrection more viable. The Bill of Rights are those safeguards. The Constitution was written after the Revolutionary War and yes America did have a standing army(the U.S. Continental Army, Navy and Marines) at that time. Remember, they used them to defeat the British? The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to defend themselves individually or collectively from oppression be it foreign or domestic. 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. An unarmed society is a victimized society, ask Hitler, Stalin, Mousilini and their ilk.
Long live the NRA promoting homeland security since 1871.
July 2, 2010 - 3:02amPermalink
A definite yes,use your common sense people.We the people have had enough taken away from us.
July 2, 2010 - 8:16amPermalink
A machine gun is a weapon of mass destruction...amusing. Sounds like gun ban advocate to me. Hate all guns incrementally because we the people are to stupid to own anything as dangerous as a machine gun. Hello! A semi tractor trailer with a load of propane in the hands of a maniac is a weapon of mass destruction!!!! Machine guns are so regulated, legal ones are used more for investment purposes than as weapons. Illegal ones, don't matter. They're out there and will be used whether you ban them or not.
Get off the gun ban band wagon. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Did you actually serve in the military to protect and defend or are you here on this site to stir up the folks?
July 2, 2010 - 11:59amPermalink
The 2nd Amendment exists to keep both the government and its armed might in check. When a government disarms its population, it can do whatever it pleases because only its "legal" army possesses firearms. History is filled with evidence of this. In our own history, King George ordered his standing army to confiscate all firearms in the colonies. By violating King George's law, colonists kept the means to resist. That armed population stood up against the tyrant king and his Redcoats, establishing this great nation. Alexander Hamilton reinforced the need for the armed citizen in 1788:"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." Could it be any clearer?
July 2, 2010 - 12:09pmPermalink
It is not for any government to decide whether or not I - as a free man, can own or carry a gun (any type). It is a god given right. Our forefathers knew this.
Shame on the government and all groups who work diligently to suppress or deny or otherwise try to take away our god given rights.
You'd think they would spend the time instead trying to keep America strong & free and fix the real issues plaguing us,and stop wasting it on assaulting Americans rights.
You may have an opinion or belief about guns. That does not give you (or the government) the right to determine whether or not that is good or legal for FREE MEN.
also - criminals don't follow laws.
July 2, 2010 - 9:41pmPermalink
Over the years it has become so self evident that in areas where the population is armed, the crime rate diminishes. This is backed up by current FBI statistics. How plain can it be? Let me know when all the 'bad guys' are either in prison or converted to 'nice guys' and I'll gladly give up my weaponry.
July 3, 2010 - 9:17amPermalink
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
President, General and Founding Father George Washington knew that governments have a way of growing more powerful at the expense of the people, eventually enslaving them. Today we see an effort to move this country away from the fundamentals which have made this country great and to replace it with socialism. Socialism cannot work unless freedom is taken from the people.
If we can't lay down our party affiliations during the next few elections and begin voting for those who support the constitution, freedom, and liberty, then we will all be guilty of unspeakable shame. May God have mercy upon us and give us wisdom.
April 21, 2012 - 2:18amPermalink
I think that people are the same and that some guns, magazines and ammunition has changed. Also, this is a good example where the Constitution is a fluid document. If the capabilities of weapons were available at the time of the Constitution this would have been taken into consideration.