Right to bear arms at heart of high court case »
Posted By DiffeeOnline 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsFor the first time in 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court will take on the question of whether individual Americans have the right to keep and bear arms or whether it a collective right of the people for service in a state militia.
Read Full Story at reuters.com »
268 Views Share Story 48 Comments Report
Submitted By:
DiffeeOnline
Social media, politics, technology, news, marketing, and the environment. These are my passions. These are the things that I spend more time with than anything ...
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 160 of 162 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a waste of time. The SCOTUS will not decide that the people cannot bear arms. They know good and well that the citizens of this nation will not stand for our guns to be taken away.
Also, when people say that the National Guard represents the "well regulated militia" that is spoken of in the 2nd, they are incorrect. The whole point of the fore-fathers writing the 2nd was to guarantee to people that if their government was ever taken over by tyrants, that we could do as they did and take the power back for the people of this nation.
Reply-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, hell is now frozen over & we can go ice skating. I agree with you! The founders NEVER meant for this nation to have a standing army, which the national guard IS. The militia was the people themselves, trained in the use of arms, and coming to the defense of the nation if needed.
Reply -
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a sticky issue. As a gun owner myself, I don't want anyone to be able to come and take my guns away. But I can also see the problems created by gun ownership. Of course passing laws saying no one can own guns will only ensure that only criminals will have guns. Now I sound like a representative of the NRA. Not so. I think that the people who sell guns illegally should be charged as accomplices to any crime committed with them. If you sell the gun within the limits of the law, your fine, but if you are knowingly selling guns unregistered to people who shouldn't have them, your an accomplice to any crime they commit with them and are charged as such.
Reply-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tchef
So what you're saying is we should compromise "the people's right to keep and bear arms", to make you feel safer? I don't think so. Prosecuting criminals who use firearms to commit crimes is one thing but making it more difficult to buy and sell guns doesn't work for me. As law abiding, taxpaying citizen, I consider things like the Brady Law an infringement of my 2nd Amendment Rights.
Reply -
Neutral
Centinel1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If guns are outlawed I will become rich overnight. My guns will suddenly quadruple in value on the black market that will spring up almost immediately. You think drugs are a problem, wait until the black market in guns takes hold. Lots and lots of shootouts!
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The axiom goes: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Depriving law-abiding people the right to possess handguns for defense against law-breaking people who might possess handguns is unacceptable. What do the victims do for defense, yell at the outlaws that handguns are illegal in this city?
If someone broke into my house I'd tell them that...after my .45 gave them the right to remain silent.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DrBenway1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Every time I read someone saying about how they'd blow the hell out of someone if they tried to break into their house or whatever...
... I wonder, "have you ever killed someone? Have you ever seen up close what a bullet does to a human being?"
It's not like a John Wayne film, you know. The person doesn't just clutch their chest, fall down and yelp "Ya got me".
I worked in an ER for decades. I'll pulled shattered teeth out of people's throats to clear their airways after they've been shot in the face, point blank. There's a lot of blood ... and screaming.
I've seen what guns do up close, so pardon me if I don't share the same wild-west romance.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thank you for speaking up, Dr Benway.
Be prepared to be attacked by pro-gun nuts who will explain that all those wounds were undoubtedly by illegal mexican immigrants in gang shootings and that normal people with guns are protecting America from said horrible people.
Reply -
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've seen what guns do up close, so pardon me if I don't share the same wild-west romance.>>>>
I'm a woman, 5'5" tall. One night, some 35 years ago while my three kids slept, I heard a noise. With my double barreled shotgun in hand, I walked to the back of the house, where I found a hand wrapped around the edge of the back door, helping whoever was on the other side to force the chain lock loose from its screws. I raised the gun, and pumped the shells into the chambers. The furthest thing from my mind was "romance." Had he not fled, I'd have fired. Protecting my children and myself was more important to me than what they would have had to witness at the morgue. Better him than us.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'd much rather see the bad guy's teeth shattered in his throat and the bad guy in pain and dying on my living room floor screaming than me or my family. I would have no problem blowing him or her away. I have talked to people that were in a shoot to survive situation and they all said that not only did they not have a problem pulling the trigger but they kept pulling it till the gun was empty out of pure fear for their lives.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Harbeas1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here we go again! We are allowing the supreme court to make laws. The constitution does not give them that right. I am not a gun lover by any stretch of the imagination, but the constitution gives us that right. Why are we going to allow the supreme court to possibly change it?
Reply-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
Neutral
Centinel1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You misunderstand. We have the unalienable right. All the constitution does is protect that right by acknowledging said right.
Any other interpretation is clever rhetoric, Orwellian Sophistry, intentional misinterpretation for the purpose of some agenda, a lack of English comprehension, and of course, TYRANNY!
If they rule any other way than an individual's unalienable right, it will be a CALL TO ARMS! Stock up on ammo and be prepared for VIOLENT REVOLT!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Libs don't like guns because then the commie socialists can't take over our country without a fight. The British tried it and we ran them off with our personal firearms and thats why we have the right to bear arms as the second amendment. Ohh yeah...There were a bunch of so called Americans that flipped over to the British side during the Revolution too. Cowardly traitors that fought with the enemy against us. I think they would be the Democrats of today. Cutting funding of our troops during a time of deployment? Traitors to America
Reply-
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
GrayReb1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dr. Benway, you certainly have a valid point and I agree to an extent. I'm sure you've seen more horrors in the ER then the rest of us can imagine. However, these are violent times, and as a parent and grandparent, I want the right to defend me and mine, should the occasion arise.
Believe me, it has nothing to do with the Wild-West or Cowboy mentality. It's a fact of life today that there are predatory intruders who think nothing of breaking in to your domicile, threatening and terrorizing innocent and unsuspecting homeowners and their families.
Although I am against the use of hand-guns, I stand by my right to defend me and mine by pulling my double-barrel off the wall to provide us with a fighting chance. And, I would hope that the mere sight of two barrels pointed in their direction would intimidate any intruder.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A handgun is the most reasonable means of protection for a woman.
The problem isn't the guns. But the real problem is much more difficult, since we don't understand it and have no solutions, so we'll distract ourselves by disarming law-abiding citizens and abrogating our rights.
My generation watched The Untouchables, Bullitt, and Bonnie and Clyde, had toy guns, and had loaded guns in our homes where we could reach them (father's service pistols and hunting/plinking guns). And there wasn't any problem.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the gun control argument touches on an age old question: how does one combat evil without using evil methods?
The answer is you don't, in the short term immediate now. Love and peace and all that good stuff are powerful in a society over the long haul [witness the effect of the peaceful civil rights movement] but in the now, it doesn't work so well. Would peaceful protest had much effect on KKK members in the 50's and 60's who were terrorizing someone? Of course not.
Here is a question for anyone who is across the board anti-gun:
Which crime scene would you rather be on, the Cho scene where only the killer had a gun, or the scene at that church where someone BESIDES the killer had a gun.
Good luck answering that one pacifists and anti-gun commentators
Reply-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In fairness, there is a counter question to that. If a large number of students on the campus were armed at the time of Cho's attack, would many of them shot at each other, mistaking each other for the attacker.
If you approach the issue from the question of citizen safety, relatively few citizens use guns to successfully defend themselves from armed attackers. A large majority of gun deaths and injuries in this country occur from accidents, suicides and people who attempt to defend themselves, but are injured or killed in the process. Statistically you're safer without a gun.
That, of course, doesn't address the constitutional issue, which is what the court will be hearing. I'd bet you any amount of money that the court will come down on the side of lawful gun owners.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what about this, if we agree to license and register our firearms would that make the anti gunners happy. As a gun owner and licensed carrier of a hand gun, I have no issue with the registration and waiting period. I just don't want anyone to tell me what to do. Thats called socialism or marxism or some f-n ism. If I pass the back ground check am a law abiding citizen why can't I have a gun.
Reply-
Neutral
Centinel1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What? You mean like a driver's "LICENSE" where you give up you rights when you sign it so you can get "permission" to travel using your "titled" vehicle entitling you to exclusive use of the State's property which you paid for?
Or do you mean like a marriage "license" where you are required to get "permission" to get married/ Or maybe a building permit to build a dog house in your back yard? Or nay other action the "government" feels it has the authority to require under it unlawful de facto auspices?
By all means let us throw away even more of our liberty for a little bit of insufficient security.
The way I read the second amendment is; since we have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms it is the duty of government to provide training so we may be used for defensive purposes if the need would arise.
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a big issue with licensing and registration. Hitler argued that was the best way to start the ball rolling to disarm people.
And there is no evidence it makes a difference. Why would we do something that infringes on our rights and doesn't solve the problem?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are two issues involved. 1) What does the second amendment of the constitution mean? and 2) Is the average citizen safer or less safe if they own a gun?
I think the constitution is fairly clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Historically militias were collections of citizens who were self organized. In my opinion, it would take a constitutional amendment to outright ban handguns (or any guns of the types that existed at the time it was written). A constitutional amendment to do that isn't going to happen.
Still I have a question for gun owners. Where do you think most criminals get their guns? Some buy them at gun shows, some buy them from legitimate owners, but most steal them from homes were guns are owned. A few criminals in the right positions might be able to buy and smuggle guns from international gun sellers, but for the most part they get them from those of us who are legitimate gun owners.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, the question in the last paragraph is kind of horse outta the barn. The guns are out there. Criminals have them. In an actual confrontation with an armed criminal, its like caring about where you caught the flu while you're puking.
I can answer one of your questions [tho I already answered in my previous post]
'2) Is the average citizen safer or less safe if they own a gun?'
Yes, if you take it out of the hypothetical and are faced with an armed lunatic
Cho scene: 33 dead
scene at Colorodo church: 2 dead
the difference was the people at one scene were safer because just one person there owned a gun
the numbers don't lie
if you want to blame guns you can but its kinda pointless
there are millions of them out there, unaccounted for
the horse is outta the barn
Reply -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In those countries where guns are banned, only the law-abiding are disarmed. The criminals have found them too easy to import or even manufacture themselves. There is a video on Youtube of a man in a cave with no electricity making an AK-47 by hand. There is no way to stop criminals and lunatics from getting guns. Only law-abiding people obey laws, and they aren't the problem.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Recently a fellow went to jail in Arizona because he shot someone while walking in the woods. He felt threatened by the fellow's dogs (who were running free -- this was not Central Park!) and after he shot the dogs by the fellow (who was large and rather upset). Now a law abiding person who just happened to be walking his dogs is dead and another law abiding person is in prison. All because someone wanted a gun for self defense.
I have a cousin who works in the courts and he says that cases of accidental killings (like above) are more common than cases of self defense killings. So that case above is not an anomaly, but rather the rule.
I'm not saying that there isn't cases where a gun increases a person's safety like a night clerk at a 7-11 for instance, but in general that is not the case.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Such events are rare and are certainly not the rule.
There always have been, and probably will be for some time in the future, a consistent percentage of people who are sociopathic, psychopathic, etc., in the population and they do things most people consider horrible.
But we've had people for hundreds of years walking with guns through woods where people and dogs were present and most of the time this didn't happen and still doesn't.
Statistics show most times when a gun is shown, the crime stops.
We can talk ourselves into an emotional tizzy with anecdotes, but the fact is that armed people are generally trustworthy. In Israel, even school-aged teens carry rifles with them, and they don't perpetrate crimes.
Don't give up your rights, people. Our founders were much more experienced and insightful in such matters than those sitting in state houses and congress today.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
motivator9111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
roflmao aint no way this will fly I am ONE OF MILLIONS WHO WILL NOT, LET ME REPEAT, WILL NOT GIVE UP MY GUNS, I dont know exactly how many Americans own guns but I am gonna guess and say about 1/3 that translates to about 100 million I could be off, but I would doubt by much, and hell our gov't cant even get rid of a few million illegal aliens how they gonna make law biding americans get rid of guns just because someone interprets my constitution wrong LOL I dont think so but good luck trying
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
wildman65571 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is the truth. If you don't like the truth, well too bad.
See:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/...
Kuenzli was a volunteer walking the dogs for the Humane Society at the time. Some quotes from the local newspaper:
Payson retiree John McCauley, 73, who befriended Kuenzli at Payson's dog
park, described him as "a very gentle person" who loved dogs and the
outdoors.
"McCauley and others in Payson who knew Kuenzli said it does not add up
that he and his dogs would have been a threat to another hiker."
"Stubbs, a retired Phoenix police officer, said the shelter would have
euthanized either dog if it was vicious."
Hardly the description of a violent criminal. Basically, Fish panicked and since he had a gun, he shot Kuenzli. By the way, Fish was later convicted.
See:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
denden791 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Guns! Who needs 'em? Well, we already have the National Guard in every State, we have hunters who shoot game for food or sport, we have CIA, FBI, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Army, Navy, Marines, Shore Patrol, State Police, US Marshals, County Sheriffs, City Police, Highway Patrol. Who else needs a gun? CRIMINALS or people with criminal intent.
I had an air rifle once (Daisy M-16) that I used for target practice when I was a young man in my 20's. The MACHO thing is long gone. As for the "right to keep and bear arms," that was written when the USA had no State Militia, no National Guard, and pertained to the firearms of the time: flintlock-style firearms. NO one, outside of law enforcement, other than a licensed collector, should have the right to possess a "killing machine" rapid-fire firearm!
And the hunter who uses a shotgun to hunt/kill squirrels has got to be NUTS! Where's the challenge?
Reply-
Neutral
Centinel1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God, Guns, and Guts made this country great. Let us keep all three.
If you have a problem with this you better pray to your God I don't blast your guts with my gun!
Oh and by the way you coward; why don't you leave and go to China?
We people were and are BORN with the right to self defense, self preservation and survival. Instinct cannot be "legislated" away!
You are entitled to your opinion but do not try to impose upon everyone else. Who died and made you GOD?
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So move to a country that already has no right to keep and bear arms. Plenty of them exist. I'm betting you'll move back.
During the Great Depression, people ate pigeons, squirrels, and anything they could find. My parents had to live through it. Don't think it couldn't happen again.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
lorenram1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The History as well as the precedent are for americans to be armed citizens. The brilliant, genius, God inspired founding fathers had experienced the problem we are facing. after disruptions in Concord & Boston the British troops were sent out to take all weapons from the homes of all citizens and then the troops were assigned to live in the citizens homes , which is the basis of another amendment. That is why we we have article 2 and article 3 of the bill of rights. BUT,HOWEVER,look at Australia they changed the law of their land to get guns away from every citizen. The SUpreme court will take your guns despite the fact that it is directly contradictory to the Bill of rights. there was no restriction of militia service. women owned guns, and a militia purposely did not have a list of its members!! Check your History. every male from 14-70 were expected to serve including slaves, either at home or away
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I'm an atheist, and I still assert that I have a natural right to self defense as well as an obligation to protect my community from enemies foreign and domestic. This really is one of those moments where the future of the U.S. hangs in the balance. We'll find out in June.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
coolrayfruge1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Support the Second Amendmendment.
Its the only thing protecting us.
Passive people make easy prey for the preditors who want to control and have power over the rest of us.
They are already legally robbing us of our rights with their legalized crime operations of extortion and ,loan sharking.
Talking about our Corrupt Government.The politicians,Businessmen and Bankers.
Our country is run by those that don't care about your rights, so don't be fooled by their lies.
Power and Financual control.
Guns is the only thing stopping these cowards.
A smart crimminal won't regester a gun if he plans to use it on someone.
Reply -
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
billcorno1 year, 7 months ago
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Centinel1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Under Statute law that is true. However, under common law it is not! Only three forms of law are permitted under the constitution. 1. common law 2. civil law 3. admiralty law.
Any other court or system outside of or superior to these is unlawful. Subordinate to these is OK. That is why we have an unlawful de facto government. A lawful de jure government would only have the aforementioned three court systems.
There isn't space enough to expand on these but if you google these you will be much better informed.
Reply
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Healthcare bill clears parliamentary hurdle in House
Afghan government accuses U.N., foreign officials of interfering in internal affairs
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.