Supreme Court decides we can own guns- Agree?

Question

As a member of the NRA I think that we have the right to own guns.

Answer 1

The Supreme court is full of eccentric buffoons who are power drunk and should all be retired. No, they don't have the right to amend our original Constitution, EVER. We will never cave in if they some day decide we should not have the right to own guns. Disarm the people and you enslave them. Have you really looked at the Kooks they call Supreme court judges? They aren't human.

Answer 2

i think so, especially since if bad guys want guns bad enough they can still find a way to get them, so then the only people carrying guns would be police men and criminals, so we couldn't protect ourselves. Plus where i live hunting is popular and brings a lot of money to our town and if we couldn't carry guns then we couldn't hunt

Answer 3

Most people with any intelligence realized that all along. It was listed as a "right" after freedom of speech, and with freedom of religion and the rest. if this was only applicable to the militia, there would be no need for an ammendment spelling out "rights". Anti Gun people have held on to their irrational milita argument for years and now have been told they were wrong.

Once again, anti gun laws only apply to people who follow laws, as evidenced, ironicaly by DC itself. All guns have been banned since 1976, yet somehow they have shy high gun crime, while places like vermont, that respect the constitution and have no gun laws somehow have very low crime rates or none at all.

If cities have a problem with criminals with guns, they need to punish criminals with guns, not people who follow the law. All the DC gun band did was prevent law abiding people from getting guns, while criminals simply ignored the ban.

The simple facts are states that have gun friendly laws, allow citizens to conceal carry with very limited restrictions have low crime rates and those who enact such laws notice an immediate drop in crime against persons.

Cities like NY, LA, Newark, Boston, Camden, Chicago etc etc..all make it very difficult, if not impossible for the average person to own a gun, yet somehow have high gun crime rates.

You don't punish people who follow the law because of the actions of people who do not. You punish the law breakers.

The governemnt now has no more right to restrict our rights to have guns as they have the right to restrict my freedom of speech or tell me what religion to follow.

Thank you US Supreme Court for finally getting the balls to rule on this once and for all. Now we need to apply this ruling to the draconian gun laws that many states still have.

Answer 4

Absolutely agreed! It's spelled out right in the Constitution.

Answer 5

Yes, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that the right to keep and bear arm is an individual right.  Maybe now that law abiding citizens of our nation's capitol have that right restored (& the ability to defend themselves restored), the high crime rate there will go down.

Answer 6

Agreed.

Answer 7

I like my Second Amendment better.

"We, the people of the United States, in order that we shall have the right to preserve a State free for all races, shall achieve this end by the use of less-lethal weaponry only for our continued survival as human beings. This free State entails our personal self-defense as well as our right to our food consumption. In keeping with current government law, if we so choose to possess a less-lethal weapon (be it either upon our persons or within our private homes), we are obligated to store these aforementioned weapons plus any ammo relating to its use in a manner which will serve to protect the welfare of a minor child."