Our constitutional right to bear arms....has anyone?
447666
Ok..First off, there is no constitutional right to bear arms.  Bottom line, it doesn't exist.  I know you've heard politicians talk over and over about it, but the fact is the federal appellate courts are in near unanimous agreement that the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms, rather it is a guarantee of a militia...not my argument.. that's waht the courts say - that's what the law is.  One other point to drive this home.  The 2nd Amendment...whatever it means...does not apply to the states.  If the amendment does prevent the federal government from taking away individuals right to bear arms (which as I said earlier it doesn't), it does not apply to the states.  The states are free to ban all weapons of any sort (Washington D.C. does this by the way..).  SO bottom line...there is no constitutional right to bear arms.
1044884
Yes it is our duty stated in the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms to keep our government in check. But unfortunately it's too late. They have become so tyrannical and powerful that we dropped the ball and didn't listen to the founding fathers until it was too late.
570356
Yes. Most of us have done something in our lives that we are not proud of. Sometimes in was over 20 years ago when we were younger and not very wise in our ways. Even those who are offenders pay taxes, therfore we are people under the constitution with inalienable rights (see constitution).  \nPerhaps a regulation on the type or how many firearms would be more appropriate for non-violent offenders.
882664
I live in the United States and the 2nd Amendment grants each citizen the right to keep and bear arms.  In the recent past, there have been attempts by Democrats to misinterpret our constitution and claim that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the military.  Well, they are wrong and I'd be very surprised if they ever succeed in taking away our 2nd Amendment right (please research the Emerson case for more specifics on what I'm referring to).\n\nPrivate citizens need guns for many purposes.  Hunting for sport and meat has been and continues to be a right exercised by millions of law abiding Americans.  Some of us collect guns because we simply enjoy the fine craftsmanship of a well made firearm.  Some of us shoot for sport and target practice as a form of recreation and honing our skills.  As for using firearms as weapons against people, there is much evidence to indicate that a criminal will be quite reluctant to attack a person if there is a possibilty that that person is armed.  I feel quite confident that my  parents, wife, children, and numerous other friends and relatives are well equipped with the proper skills and weapons to defend themselves if they should ever be attacked by a life-threatening criminal.  If more people practiced their skills, and responsibly carried firearms, there would be a much reduced threat of criminal attack.  Once a person has been convicted of a violent crime, his 2nd Amendment right should be taken from him.  Those of us who enjoy guns in a responible manner, however, should be allowed to pursue our hobby in whatever way we wish, without the threat of uninformed people threatening to take away our rights.  Guns are dangerous weapons at times, but in the right hands they can be used responsibly and are an integral part of how this country came to be in the first place.  Before anyone spouts off about gun lovers who are hiding in bunkers, harboring irrational fears, and making ready to commit mass killings, you should consider the fact that most gun owners are not weirdos who want to kill you.  Our guns are much less dangerous to society that your teenage kids, riding around drunk in their new sports cars that you bought for them......\n\nFor Bob D.:  "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  I expected someone to try to misinterpret this again.....it keeps happening and we keep proving you wrong.  As I said, please research the Emerson case to see what the Courts have to say about this.  And, Bob, please cover up your bare arms!  The correct word is BEAR.
208087
Well according to the Federalist Papers an armed citizenry is ideal because keeps the government in check.  The government should be afraid of the citizenry not the other way around.\n\nAccording to the 2nd Amendment the States have the right to impose what controls it sees necessary to protect the citizenry, in fact there were rules that every male HAD to carry a weapon at certain times.\n\nIn my state we have very little crime mainly because it is easy for law abiding citizens to get a permit to carry.  In fact Virgina is now suggesting to women who get personal protection orders (restraining orders) also get pistol permits. \n\nI talked to a Secret Service Agent once where he told where he was being wolf-packed, he pulled his weapon and the gang dispersed.\n\nI had someone intentionally hit my pick-up once.  They got out of their vehicle fairly quickly I didn't have a clue what was going on, thankfully I had my pistol with me, I talked my way out of it.\n\nThe thing is training is key.\n\nThe only gun control I believe in is felons never owning any and where I use two hands\n\nThe thing is I have read reports where the use of knives by criminals are up.  The kids in Florida who killed a homeless man didn't use a firearm they beat him.\n\nIt's not the firearm that's evil, it's people.  And because there are evil people we should be able to defend against being harmed, according to the Declaration of Independence we have the right to life.  Criminals try to violate that right and the only way that it's guareteed is if we fight to protect it
215874
During the 20th century, the Supreme Court chose to redefine the plain language of the Second Amendment to embody a "collective right."  This is where the idea comes that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the Army to keep and bear arms.  While this argument is clearly made from an historically illiterate basis, it was adopted not only by the Supreme Court, but accepted as settled law by Attorneys General right up until the current administration.\n\nUnder the Ashcroft Justice Department, and now under Gonzalez, the official position of the US Government is that the Second Amendment is not a collective, but an individual right, as it was intended.  Nevertheless, there is still too much precendent from the activist court that says otherwise.  Hence, places like DC, New York, and others have effectively banned guns, regardless of the Constitution (and just how safe are those places?).\n\nWhat it will take now is a lawsuit or several challenging the constitutionality of the gun bans.  These suits would have to make it to the Supreme Court, and we would have to hope that the current composition of the Court would tend to rely more upon the Constitution than stare decisis.
700704
No dude.  Its the right to bear arms.  You have the right to hang bear arms over your mantle.  Why does everyone confuse this?
973090
It is our constitutional right to do so.\n\nThe last time that this was tried it brought about the Civil War.  Is this really what you want?
542800
Trying to figure out how this new "War on Terror" justifies suspension of our Constitution.  In 1812, with a foreign enemy burning down Washington D.C., NO PART of the Constitution was re-written or suspended.  Emergency provisions did not ever give the president the power to unilaterally enforce the law before.  This was in the face of our absolute destruction with an very real enemy on our soil.  Now we have a fantasy enemy over-seas that takes occaisional potshots at us, which we created through our own failed foreign policies, so we now need to give up every fundamental legal and expression freedom we have?  Do Americans just not have balls these days?  Why aren't the real conservatives trying to "conserve" our damned Constitution which has weathered EVERY CRISIS before this?  I just don't get it.\n\nIf you want to hunt me down, I'll be easy to find in the postage stamp sized "Free Speech Zone".  When I was a kid, everywhere was a Free Speech Zone...except maybe in church.
97189
There is authority in the Bill of Rights to protect you from forced consent to certain things (search and seizure, quartering troops, etc).  But anything else is up for argument.
1182002
Do you have a gun?         (jez kiddin' folks............)
359890
The 2nd amendment which pertains to the right to bear arms is one of the most misunderstood rights of the Bill of Rights.  Most people don’t understand that the 2nd amendment was instituted to create a ready and armed militia; not to hunt squirrels or for protection of their property or protection from one another.
866849
Yes guns should NOT be legalised in britain. It opens it up for any maggot to get a hold of one, One of the nice things about living here is knowing that we have little chance of ever seeing one, let alone having one pointed at us. However we do have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves against intruders. This could be anything that comes to hand, even your hands themselves. Maybe a handy baseball or cricket bat, or a hammer. Personally I favour the razor sharp samurai sword. Nothing says 'get the fuck out of my house' quite like one of those.
622585
It's unconstitutional.\n\nAmendment II \n\nA 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. \n\nA free state not nation.\n\nYou really trust the government that much for your safety?  It takes thirty to forty minutes in this state for a deputy to respond to a call.  It takes thirty seconds for a person to bleed out.\n\nSo those of us who provide our own food what would we do? hunt with stones?  \n\nI have had a couple of situations where I was glad I was armed.\n\nWe have also had mountain lion attacks in this state.  I don't believe in the so-called non-lethal.  Pepperspray can be blown back in your face.  \n\nWhen people start getting killed by stones are you going to out law rocks  (people get killed with rocks now)?  How can this be done, are you God?  I doubt it.  What about cars, knives, scissors, rope, baseball bats, plastic bags.  Are you for banning all these?\n\nWhat actually effects violence is being stronger than a bad guy.  The philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt have a big stick and walk softly.  If everyone is armed the Bad guy naturally backs down, because they look for weaker targets.
1054800
If the pro gun people think that the right to be armed shall not be infringed, why then do they think that criminals should be disarmed??? Seems like what they're really saying is that only THEIR rights should not be infringed!
157274
yes, if we break down the right to bear arms we have no freedoms left.  Free speech and privacy are already gone.
381269
the second amendment.