Second Amendment upheld

Question

Now without emotions one way or the other. We now know from the Supreme Court the founding fathers did not mean guns for hunting only, but for protection, and to take back the government should it become unresponsive to the people. Many cities are saying you can have one but it must be inoperable, do you think the right to bear arms means a piece of one, or an unloaded one? If the gun violence is an epidemic, why hasn't the Feds taken the latitude away from Judges that throw out gun possesion for felons, use of a firearm in the commision of a felony, theft of a firearm and make it mandatory to sentence under federal guidelines (10 yrs on top of the time for the crime) like they had to do with drugs over a certain amount. Don't you think the founding fathers meant for lawful citizens to be able to protect themselves, and those who use them in a crime given the mandatory 10 yrs? How many crimes would be commited with a firearm if the crimminal knew he had 10 yrs coming for the 40 bucks he got at the 7-11 on top of the armed robbery charge? Our government, has punished the law abiding citizens for years for the acts of crimminals, now that the issue is closed shouldn't we try another approach to stem gun violence? For the lawers and students of law got one more question, the Sencond Amendment states we have the right to "bear" arms, this means to me to bear means to carry on one's person, not to leave it at home in a lockbox, if you had to argue this case how can it not mean to carry? Otherwise it would have said the right to own a firearm, just the way I understand it. How can one statement become so convoluted.

Answer 1

we all know what the founding fathers meant, and so do the politicians who are taking us down the road to socialism. their intent is to whittle away at our freedoms a little at a time. yet people are so stupid, they keep electing them over and over. the way for bad man to succeed, is for good man to do nothing.

Answer 2

remeber the billd of rights are suppose to be individual rights of a citizen

Answer 3

Why do people care what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the bill of rights? Many of these guys kept slaves and would have been against letting women or poor people vote.

When looking at the Second Amendment, shouldn't the Supreme Court consider what is best for the American people today, not what the Philadelphia Convention thought was best for the American people of 1791?

The murder rate in Europe is far lower than the US, so either Americans are inherently more violent than Europeans, or it's easier to kill some in the United States.

Answer 4

I do think that the founding fathers meant that guns should be allowed to be owned considering most people at that time owned them for many reasons including hunting, self-defense, and citizen militias.  I think they put that in there for a reason because they knew that the first think dictators do is take away the arms and then they mow down the people with their armies.  I also think the second amendment means an almost unconditional use of your firearms and even the type.  If someone wants to own a rocket launcher then they should be able to own one.  If you think that someone will use this against another citizen then you are being silly.  Imagine a crook walking into a circle K with a bozooka and saying "Thisis a stick up".  Wouldn't that look foolish and unimaginable.  

Answer 5

To the poster above me, is Britain socialist? Canada? Australia? We all have strict gun laws, why not the US?

Answer 6

We all know what the founding fathers intended for this country.  But I don't think some really care anymore.  

Answer 7

I am outraged that 4 supreme court justices ruled that the bill of rights does not apply to individual citizens. And more outraged that they were not impeached within a week and removed from the court. We are sliding toward a totalitarian form of government. And the Supreme Court is applying the grease.

It is very scary to think that had Gore and Kerry been elected, the Second Amendment would be toast. Like the war on drugs has done to the 4th.

Answer 8

For a person without emotion, you sure are fired up about this. Actually, the Second Amendment gives the right for members of a State Militia to bear arms, but the Supreme Court has held up the right of citizens to own and carry guns.  I don't know as this includes machine guns or guns that are meant for wartime use.  

As for criminals, I don't know that longer sentences would make any difference.  The time you mention, when sentences for drug offenses were lengthy and mandatory, people who smoked a marijuana cigarette were put in jail for ten years.  I remember, in the case of one musician, the public became so aroused, he was finally released.  As has been quoted, "Let the punishment fit the crime!"  

If a criminal kills or maims someone, a lengthy sentence is usually imposed.  Rush Limbaugh may envision a world where criminals are patted on the back and released, but that really isn't true. Lengthy sentences exist, but do not seem to deter the next criminal. No one commits a crime expecting to get caught!

In Michigan, people can "bear" arms.  They can carry a weapon.  They can have a concealed weapon.  There is absolutely no rule to stop anyone from bearing arms.  Other states may have different laws.

In my opinion, guns should be used for only three purposes...practice at a licensed gun range, hunting (if you must), and protection in your home or car.  That doesn't mean being a rude, red-faced, angry avenger aching to shoot anyone that approaches for whatever reason.  It means sensible, rational use of your guns.