This story is archived
Right to bear arms at heart of high court case »
Posted by: DiffeeOnline 1 year, 9 months agoFor 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 »
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 ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 162
-
tanglang
March 15, 2008, 9:14 a.m.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.
-
-
tchef
March 15, 2008, 10:22 a.m.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.
-
TonyByron
March 15, 2008, 1:41 p.m.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.
-
-
-
DrBenway
March 15, 2008, 4:50 p.m.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.
-
automan909
March 15, 2008, 5:05 p.m.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.
-
Harbeas
March 15, 2008, 5:16 p.m.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?
-
automan909
March 15, 2008, 5:36 p.m.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
-
automan909
March 15, 2008, 5:46 p.m.DrBenway...I would not take time to ask for proof of age before I emptied my Glock. If he or her was in my house I would shoot. Don't worry, they won't need a Dr. either.
-
GrayReb
March 15, 2008, 6:13 p.m.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.
-
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin
March 15, 2008, 6:25 p.m.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
-
THOMNH62
March 15, 2008, 6:34 p.m.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.
-
Ratskii
March 15, 2008, 6:55 p.m.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.
-
wildman6557
March 15, 2008, 8:42 p.m.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.
-
motivator911
March 15, 2008, 8:44 p.m.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
-
motivator911
March 15, 2008, 8:46 p.m.wildman6557 I dont say this very often but I think your full of $hit.
-
godsbiker
March 15, 2008, 8:57 p.m.I wonder how many teeth drbenway has taken out of crushed jaws of auto accident victims. Also remember that the 2nd amendment was written when duels were legal.
-
denden79
March 15, 2008, 9:03 p.m.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?
-
lorenram
March 15, 2008, 9:44 p.m.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
-
coolrayfruge
March 15, 2008, 10:01 p.m.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.
-
mntnman444Comment has been removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
bonaroo
March 15, 2008, 10:53 p.m.I think everyone should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. It's the bullets that should be controlled. Don't you know that lead is hazardous to your health. :-)
-
billcorno
March 15, 2008, 11:31 p.m.In 2004, guns murdered
5 people in New Zealand
37 in Sweden
56 in Australia
73 in England and Wales
184 in Canada
and 11,344 in the U.S.
from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence website
(I know, it's a biased website.)
-
AtheismIsRealityComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
baddad59Comment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
ekklesiawarriorComment has been removed: Hard Banned
-
Harbeas
March 16, 2008, 10:19 a.m.mackie
I disagree. Once the supreme court makes a ruling it is now cited by all judges and lawyers. In effect, it has become law!
-
AtheismIsRealityComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
dissent
March 15, 2008, 11:11 p.m.automan909: "Gee lets ban kitchen knives then. You can cut yourself while cutting your bagel."
ever cut a bagel with a glock? didn't think so
The first 160 comments are shown. Show all 162 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
