# USA Today Poll



## Whaack (Apr 2, 2006)

Okie X said:


> Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
> 
> Go vote.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm


Yep it sure does. And by Bear Arms that means without gov't restrictions in my opinion. The poll will probably get pulled for "flooding".


----------



## 454CasullOhio (Jun 30, 2007)

Will do, thanks.


----------



## cattrapper (Aug 11, 2006)

damn right it does, an i did vote


----------



## BowtechKicks (May 11, 2007)

You bet your a... it does. Glad to see a 98% in favor of yes.:darkbeer:


----------



## DEMP35744 (Aug 23, 2006)

Maybe this will send someone the *correct* message.


----------



## Illustrator (Aug 9, 2007)

Good to see the results of that one so far ....

Over 41,000 votes and 98% have voted yes!


----------



## hockeymack17 (Oct 2, 2007)

why do they even through that on there... criminals will find guns all that does is let them know no one else has them...


----------



## MKNOX (Jul 8, 2007)

Absolutely!!! I voted.


----------



## swampdog (Jul 26, 2004)

Apparently 98% of the people who have voted think so....


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

ACTUALLY... If you read it it says:
"Amendment II
A 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."

This was in regards to the militia and NOT that joe blow can have whatever fire arms he wants. This is one of the most missquoted laws in the US people quote only part of it to justify what they want. If you take it the way some beleive then anyone that wants a weapon can own it and that is ok....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2


----------



## woodsman78 (Jan 26, 2004)

*gun rights*

If a law abidding citizen does not have the right to keep and bare firearms of his or her choice ,then how can a well regulated militia be formed? The founding fathers of this country new what they were doing, the only way to protect a population from tyrants is for the people to be armed and have the ability to protect themselves.


----------



## cynic (Jan 25, 2006)

Komi said:


> ACTUALLY... If you read it it says:
> "Amendment II
> A 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."
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
Who or whom makes up the militia.... The "joe Blow" average citizen
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens(also considered Joe blow) to provide defense, emergency, law enforcement, or paramilitary service, and those engaged in such activity, without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

Todays milita is commonly referd to as the Reserves OR National Gaurd....Then if you feel that anyone should have the right to own whatever he or she wants then you are saying that a convicted killer should be able to purchase a automatic weapon OR that a teen ager should be able to walk in and buy a weapon that he can carry to school to protect himself??? Did we learn nothing from Columbine and the other schools out there??

I am not saying that the average law abiding person should not have the right to buy a weapon for their protection but I think that there are people out there carrying guns that don't have any business with a weapon. And what does a person need with armor-piercing rounds for??? Is there a big deer out there wearing Kevlar???:noidea::noidea::noidea: 
I know there are people who will not agree with me and that is fine so don't flame me and bash me as the amendment before this one says I have a right to say what I believe!!!


----------



## cynic (Jan 25, 2006)

Komi said:


> Todays milita is commonly referd to as the Reserves OR National Gaurd....Then if you feel that anyone should have the right to own whatever he or she wants then you are saying that a convicted killer should be able to purchase a automatic weapon OR that a teen ager should be able to walk in and buy a weapon that he can carry to school to protect himself??? Did we learn nothing from Columbine and the other schools out there??
> 
> I am not saying that the average law abiding person should not have the right to buy a weapon for their protection but I think that there are people out there carrying guns that don't have any business with a weapon. *And what does a person need with armor-piercing rounds for*??? Is there a big deer out there wearing Kevlar???:noidea::noidea::noidea:
> I know there are people who will not agree with me and that is fine so don't flame me and bash me as the amendment before this one says I have a right to say what I believe!!!


A convicted killer has lost his rights.! Now lets also understand that their are places that even those that have obtained a Concealed weapon permit are still unable to carry a firearm.. Now when we look at school shootings please do a search on the Carry laws where private armed citizens have detoured armed assailants. School campuses are a gun free zone, what better place to commit a violent crime than one where the assailant is the only one with a gun? Do we need to protect ourselves from law abiding citizens? I think not.. Todays militia has not changed militia conforms to common citizens, those that you have listed are paid and have a term of service.. 
Most knives and Broadheads have the ability to pierce many/most vests issued.. The majority of law enforcement where a vest capable of stopping at minimum a round from their own weapon.. Why, because most officers are shot with their on weapon trying to apprehend a criminal.. Now please remember CRIMINALS have given up their rights so the 2nd amendment has no bearing on them


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Komi said:


> ACTUALLY... If you read it it says:
> "Amendment II
> A 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."
> 
> ...


Sorry Komi, they're taken one at a time, not together. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed;the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Nice try.... and just because you are a law professor don;t mean you don't have an agenda. People can read. You, for example, are misquoting the law.

Aloha...  :beer:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Komi said:


> Todays milita is commonly referd to as the Reserves OR National Gaurd....Then if you feel that anyone should have the right to own whatever he or she wants then you are saying that a convicted killer should be able to purchase a automatic weapon OR that a teen ager should be able to walk in and buy a weapon that he can carry to school to protect himself??? Did we learn nothing from Columbine and the other schools out there??
> 
> I am not saying that the average law abiding person should not have the right to buy a weapon for their protection but I think that there are people out there carrying guns that don't have any business with a weapon. And what does a person need with armor-piercing rounds for??? Is there a big deer out there wearing Kevlar???:noidea::noidea::noidea:
> I know there are people who will not agree with me and that is fine so don't flame me and bash me as the amendment before this one says I have a right to say what I believe!!!


Komi.... not to be ... shall we say, judgemental, but get a grip man.... Would YOU shoot a policeman? Would YOU shoot someone not breaking into your house or threatening you with physical harm? 

By the way KOMI... where would YOU buy armor piercing rounds from? Do you know? Have you? You're sounding like a leftist. Cut it out. Oh... ARE YOU A LEFTIST?

And by the way... having a militia has no bearing on whether you have the right to bear arms.... learn the language man and stop listening to all that tripe from the left... that want to disarm us, and make us like europe and england and australia.. forget it man... you want those laws, MOVE YOUR ASSETS TO THOSE COUNTRIES.... stop trying to impose you weak minded ways on the those of us who love it here... the way it is.... and more so the way it was.

Aloha....  :beer:


----------



## stevegabriel (Apr 18, 2007)

Hi All,
I'm a Lefty and I believe the 2nd amendment allows people the right to own firearms. Period.

 The important part is the "well regulated". I live in New York and spent the 1st 49 years of my life in NYC. We decide we want guns regulated. That's our right. Other state decide they don't want as much regulation. That's their right. 
The problem is when someone goes from one state to another to buy guns for illicit purposes. It's a difficult argument and I believe the biggest problem is extremists on both sides, those who believe no one should own a gun for any reason and those who believe they have the right to automatic weapons if they so choose. Most of us are in the middle somewhere but no one listens to us. YEESH!

Steve


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

I am not a lefty and I DO beleive that law abiding people should be able to have weapons to protect themselves. I DO NOT beleive that just any body should be able to own whatever weapon they want just because some people say I have the right to bear arms so you can't stop me from owning a fully automatic weapon if I want to because that would be taking away my rights. I think people should read it as an entire statement and should quote it as such and not quote what fits their agenda wether it is in context or not. that is all I am saying. I think there are enough people with guns that have no more business with them then some people should have kids. It is a scary thought that when you have someone who buys a gun legally and then on their way out the door ask " Where do I put the bullett thingies?" I have seen this and theese people do NOT need to be carrying deadly weapons!!! I am for a nation wide permit that would require a person to prove they know what they are doing with it and can handle it safely.


----------



## GCOD (Nov 24, 2006)

it sounds like it to me that's how I voted


----------



## GCOD (Nov 24, 2006)

Komi said:


> I am not a lefty and I DO beleive that law abiding people should be able to have weapons to protect themselves. I DO NOT beleive that just any body should be able to own whatever weapon they want just because some people say I have the right to bear arms so you can't stop me from owning a fully automatic weapon if I want to because that would be taking away my rights. I think people should read it as an entire statement and should quote it as such and not quote what fits their agenda wether it is in context or not. that is all I am saying. I think there are enough people with guns that have no more business with them then some people should have kids. It is a scary thought that when you have someone who buys a gun legally and then on their way out the door ask " Where do I put the bullett thingies?" I have seen this and theese people do NOT need to be carrying deadly weapons!!! I am for a nation wide permit that would require a person to prove they know what they are doing with it and can handle it safely.


you must be friends with Sarah Brady


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

GCOD said:


> you must be friends with Sarah Brady


not even... I think the brady bill was a joke!!I am glad it is gone.


----------



## Arrowhunters5 (May 24, 2005)

*Absolutely, I voted YES YES YES*

Thanks for the link I will pass it on.

"Amendment II
A 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."

What is your definition of "the people". Is it different in the second ammendment, than in the Preamble, that starts WE THE PEOPLE. How can "the people" mean everyone in one part of the Constitution, and only the National Guard in another? I guess I am just a confused, backwoods, country bumpkin..


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

I think I am going to let a dead horse go and say that those of you who think that every tom, dick, and harry needs automatic weapons and that you feel anyone should be able to purchase one to keep at home need to look at the time when it was written and the fact that there was no National Gaurd and the only milita was the every day man (farmers, ranchers, and anyone else who loved this country) and that is who protected this country. I am a little scared to think that some of the people on here think that anyone who has money should be able to buy and carry whatever weapon they want to down the street,even if that weapon is a UZI and the fact the have no clue how to use it or shoot it with even the slightest bit of accuracy and that is OK with you.....


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

rattus58 said:


> Nice try.... and just because you are a law professor don;t mean you don't have an agenda. People can read. You, for example, are misquoting the law.


I am not a law professor and am assuming this was some form of humor but what did I misquote????


----------



## cynic (Jan 25, 2006)

The right to own a firearm and the right to carry a firearm are two different causes.
In order to carry a firearm on your person entails getting a permit. That permits involves a criminal history and background check..
Many think that owning an automatic weapon is easy, it isn't. It also involves a special permit/stamp and also has a yearly tax.
Now for those that want to or even consider the removal of firearms from the public, please first review the statistics of other nations that have already done it.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes." 
But remember that not all murders or rapes are done at gun point
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
Did you know that most burglaries in England are committed while the owners are there? Venture any guesses, thats right because the criminals know they don't have a gun if they are HONEST citizens.

Australia in just 4 yrs after the 96 gun ban remember this is a country that outlawed gun ownership of any kind. 
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

* Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

* Amazingly, *armed robberies* have climbed nearly 45 percent;

* In the Australian state of Victoria, *gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;*

* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
When the Government has neither the manpower nor the resources to protect its citizens, the citizens must be afforded the ability to protect themselves.. 

Now lets see who will argue for stricter gun control measures..... First lets get the input from the criminals and see what they would do differently if forced to by a gun legally...hmmm


----------



## Yellowfin (Mar 6, 2007)

Okie X said:


> Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
> 
> Go vote.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm


It acknowledges the right, it does not give it. All rights are God given and natural and any impediment of them is artificial. People are naturally free individuals--people controlling other people and telling them what they can and cannot do is unnatural and any effort to do so must be subject to intense and constant scrutiny. The Declaration of Independence is abundantly clear on this. What is also abundantly clear is that such is not considered a binding document when clearly it should be--it is often mentioned alongside the Constitution, yet its very purpose has been wrongfully usurped and thus the nature of our country's founding overlooked and its purpose utterly perverted. 

Such as:


> [The king] has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.





> He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:





> For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:


The Second Amendment and the concept of natural rights of man gives mechanism to the very liberty we are guaranteed and which ought to be abided,


> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
> 
> ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


 and provides that such needs be secured, be they by criminal action or legal oppression. Clearly violation of the Second Amendment is acting not in such interest of the people for purpose either of their personal security or the adherence to and enforcement of the rights of the people. Parity between the individual and the collective is the very purpose of our nation's framework, and unfortunately there has been a deterioration of the cognizance and will of the people towards its security.


----------



## awshucks (Mar 4, 2006)

I don't understand the concerns posted here on automatic weapons, more properly termed fully automatic weapons, aka "machine guns".

1934
The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.

They have been illegal for about 73 years, except for certain people that want to go thru the hassle of getting a Class III [I think] license and paying a $200 transfer tax. These legal guns have hardly ever been used in a crime.

NYS won't allow an American Veteran that lost an arm and a leg in Iraq to hunt w/ an xbow. Casts some doubts on their firearms stances for me.


----------



## cynic (Jan 25, 2006)

awshucks said:


> I don't understand the concerns posted here on automatic weapons, more properly termed fully automatic weapons, aka "machine guns".
> 
> 1934
> The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.
> ...


We already know about the insight of some others


----------



## C.Callison (Jun 20, 2006)

I think every law abiding citzen, 21 and over that is mentally stable should be trained and expected to carry a gun. Just think how many less crimes would be commited. It's kinda like walking up on a persons vehicle while hunting. Most people arnt going to bother it anyway, but the one's that would bother it wont because they dont know if the owner is insite of the vehicle ready to blow their head off. Just think how many less people would have died at Columbine, Virginia Tech or the latest mall shooting. If a dozen people in the crowd would have pulled a gun a killed the sorry S.O.B's that for whatever reason decided to flip out a kill someone.
We need to quit feeling sorry for these poor misguided souls that are not going to ever be a productive member of society. Quit trying to fix them, turn them out on their own and let nature take its course. They will fend for themselves or be taken out of the gene pool.


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

The point is some radicals say that you should be able to own what you want and the government can not tell you no because the second admendment gives them the right to have it, I am not saying everyone feels that way. all it takes is a few nuts to ruin it for the rest of us.




awshucks said:


> I don't understand the concerns posted here on automatic weapons, more properly termed fully automatic weapons, aka "machine guns".


----------



## GeorgD (Nov 18, 2002)

You bet it does and I hope this pole is the real deal. Almost 80,000 votes and still at 98% yes. 

It was meant for the "joe blows" the "right of the people" you can restate what today's understanding is of a militia is, but it wasn't written today... 

Our forefathers wanted us to be free and part of being and remaining free, is having the right to arm yourself. But you're right, people have misquoted and twitsed this amendment around to undo what was intended by our forefathers...


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Komi said:


> I am not a lefty and I DO beleive that law abiding people should be able to have weapons to protect themselves. I DO NOT beleive that just any body should be able to own whatever weapon they want just because some people say I have the right to bear arms so you can't stop me from owning a fully automatic weapon if I want to because that would be taking away my rights. I think people should read it as an entire statement and should quote it as such and not quote what fits their agenda wether it is in context or not. that is all I am saying. I think there are enough people with guns that have no more business with them then some people should have kids. It is a scary thought that when you have someone who buys a gun legally and then on their way out the door ask " Where do I put the bullett thingies?" I have seen this and theese people do NOT need to be carrying deadly weapons!!! I am for a nation wide permit that would require a person to prove they know what they are doing with it and can handle it safely.


Whenever you use "should" and "need" in an argumment concerning The US Constitution, you have already lost. If you want a different result, contact your legislators about amending the Constitution. The document grants everyone the righ tto bear any arm. ANY. Just because may lead to bad results these days does not change its meaning.


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

PMantle said:


> Whenever you use "should" and "need" in an argumment concerning The US Constitution, you have already lost. If you want a different result, contact your legislators about amending the Constitution. The document grants everyone the righ tto bear any arm. ANY. Just because may lead to bad results these days does not change its meaning.


I will conceade and let you win.... Any one can own whatever fire arm they want..... BUT in that they must also be a member of the military for as long as the gov decides NOT as long as they want, so are you ready to sign up for mandatory service in the military?????


----------



## GCOD (Nov 24, 2006)

actually it is a one time 200.00 tax, the background check alone takes 3 to 6 months and all of your local head law enforcment officers have to sign off on you having a class 3 weapon,and also the atf can show up to your home to ispect your class 3 wepons anytime they want w/o a search warrant at anytime of the day or night and everything had better be there or you are in deep crap


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Komi said:


> I will conceade and let you win.... Any one can own whatever fire arm they want..... BUT in that they must also be a member of the military for as long as the gov decides NOT as long as they want, so are you ready to sign up for mandatory service in the military?????


Komi... do yourself a favor and do a little studying on the constitution AND on the second amendment. You might also sit down with a dictionary too, for it seems there are some words you have trouble with, like the term "right".

The second amendment says this.... "A 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."

These are two fundamental freedoms of Americans. 1) The right to organize to oppose repression by free peoples in the manner of a militia, 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as in your home for defense, hunting, or shooting sports, shall not be infringed.

We are complicating their very simplicity. It takes a volume today to write a simple rule or law, they could do it in a sentence. Don't overcomplicate things, you wind up like a dog chasing its tail.

Aloha...


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

I have studyed it. All I am saying is that when this was written it was an entirely defferent time and things were not the same as today. Today SOME people want to twist things to fit what they want and to only want to use and go by the law when it is convienant. In that time EVERYONE was "in "the military because they wanted to defend something they loved and now people are running from it as it is not what they want. I feel that if a law abiding person wants to own some firearms to protect them and there family then they should do it but that they should go by what the law saysand not just when it is convienent for them to do so but all the time and quit trying to justify what they want and relize that if the law says no then you can't do it. Just remeber IF we had lost the Relevutionary war those who signed the constituion would have been charged with treason and been put to death.


----------



## 454CasullOhio (Jun 30, 2007)

Have been voting once per day and its is still at 98% in our favor after 89,000 votes. Keep voting guys!


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Komi said:


> I have studyed it. All I am saying is that when this was written it was an entirely defferent time and things were not the same as today. Today SOME people want to twist things to fit what they want and to only want to use and go by the law when it is convienant.
> 
> Just remeber IF we had lost the Relevutionary war those who signed the constituion would have been charged with treason and been put to death.


The only ones trying to change it's meaning are people like yourself. It says what it says. We can have a militia to protect ourselves, all by itself, and we can keep and bear arms, all by itself, and neither shall be infringed. 

Times do not change the constitution. This is what the liberals want, a living constitution that changes with the moral values of the country.... NOPE... we need to get back to the original constitution in EVERY way.

Aloha...  :beer:


----------



## 454CasullOhio (Jun 30, 2007)

rattus58 said:


> The only ones trying to change it's meaning are people like yourself. It says what it says. We can have a militia to protect ourselves, all by itself, and we can keep and bear arms, all by itself, and neither shall be infringed.
> 
> Times do not change the constitution. This is what the liberals want, a living constitution that changes with the moral values of the country.... NOPE... we need to get back to the original constitution in EVERY way.
> 
> Aloha...  :beer:


Well said, Rattus!


----------



## Komi (Mar 1, 2007)

I agree!!!! But to many people want to be PC and are affraid they might make someone unhappy. My feeling is if me speaking the truth makes you unhappy then oh well...


----------



## GCOD (Nov 24, 2006)

the only thing that needs to change is the legal system they should enforce the gun laws that are in effect instead of creating new ones and start punishing the criminals that commit the crimes not the honest law abiding citezens


----------



## cynic (Jan 25, 2006)

The funny thing about what the Amendment says and all the new "buzz" words available.. Take a group of citizens protecting there property from law enforcement intrusion, The are not longer armed citizens but rather a group of armed assailants  that because the government didn't recognized them or their beliefs outside of the norm.. Now remember we are not fighting a well defined army in Irag we are fighting Militia commonly referred to as Terrorist cells. So make of it what you like, bottom line is if we are defending the country and its view points we are militia. If we do not defend it we are traitors. If we fight with the troops we are militia, but if we have to fight against the forces to protect our rights we are terrorists.. 
So when the fight begins we R


----------



## carlosii (Feb 25, 2007)

Komi said:


> Todays milita ...I have a right to say what I believe!!!


Interesting..."today's militia" was never envisioned by the framers. Nor was it envisioned by those from whom the framers garnered their position on this amendment. 

I would also submit that a reading of the amendment in the broad term helps insure your "...right to say..." what you believe.

The second amendment helps insure that all the other rights are secure.


----------



## stevegabriel (Apr 18, 2007)

Just a few points to remember on "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
1) back then there was a fairly large population that depended on game for part of their sustenance.
2) Weapons were necessary for defense in frontier areas
3) the British government wanted to confiscate guns. At the time a rifle
cost about a year's pay for the average man.

England historically depended on yeoman to drop their farming implements and pick up their bows to defend the country, at one time requiring every able bodied ban to own a bow and practice with it regularly.
The right to bear arms would have been in keeping with English tradition.


----------



## booger (Mar 19, 2006)

PMantle said:


> Whenever you use "should" and "need" in an argumment concerning The US Constitution, you have already lost. If you want a different result, contact your legislators about amending the Constitution. The document grants everyone the righ tto bear any arm. ANY. Just because may lead to bad results these days does not change its meaning.



Sweet where do i sign up for some nukes?


----------



## Engelsmung (Jan 12, 2005)

*a little late but...*



rattus58 said:


> The second amendment says this.... "A 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."
> 
> These are two fundamental freedoms of Americans. 1) The right to organize to oppose repression by free peoples in the manner of a militia, 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as in your home for defense, hunting, or shooting sports, shall not be infringed.


Wolverines!


----------



## deepzak (Sep 24, 2007)

If I am not mistaken, the reason the 2nd was placed in there was to ensure that the government would not repress the people like England was trying to do to the colonists' and to form a militia in time of war with another country.

Also, I believe it says in there somewhere; any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved for the state. I don't believe that it says anywhere that the federal government has the power to regulate any firearm (I could be wrong, I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer!)

It is my belief that the second amendment is there to protect all the other rights granted. When the second has been removed, and the populace no longer has guns, who will the ones that supported its removal turn to when 
the next one attacked is the one granting their right to free speach or a fair trial?

I am on active duty in the United States Navy, I have sworn an oath to "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States from All Enemies, Forign and Domestic". The way I see it, anyone who attacks any portion of the Constitution or tries to manipulate it is a domestic enemy. I support and defend it by getting off my butt and voting, and letting my elected officials know my feelings and reminding them of THEIR responsibility to the American Public.

It was said very well in the movie V for Vendetta: Citizens should not fear their government, government should fear it's citizens.


----------



## PMantle (Feb 15, 2004)

Komi said:


> I will conceade and let you win.... Any one can own whatever fire arm they want..... BUT in that they must also be a member of the military for as long as the gov decides NOT as long as they want, so are you ready to sign up for mandatory service in the military?????


Where in the hell are you getting that? If you think the second amendment even suggests this, you're whacked out of your gourd. I think I'll just accept my constitutional right to own any firearm I want, and decide whether or not to join the all voluntary military after I talk it over with my family. Thanks.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 7, 2008)

Komi said:


> I know there are people who will not agree with me and that is fine so don't flame me and bash me as the amendment before this one says I have a right to say what I believe!!!


Is Komi short for Komunist?




Sorry...just couldn't resist. I guess everyone knows how I voted. I just love that it is over 97% yes


----------



## goldtip45 (Feb 14, 2004)

*2nd amedment*

you better believe we have a right to bear arms. sure there are many out there that want changed.
i believe the militia needs to be protecting our borders from illegals. i guarantee there would be plenty to secure that job and be glad to do it. our military dont have enough personel so why dont the goverment ask the citizens of this nation for there assistance.
like mexicans--if we were to go to there country and seek residence by crossing there border we would go through pure h___l.
im so sick and tired of this amnesty crap it makes me sick. they come over here without pursing legal citizenship and we the american people who have worked and labored most of our life for the better of our families and ourselves to keep and obtain medical expenses fear that they may be took away or cut so drastically that illegals come here and get it for free!!!!! 
free tax breaks!!!!!!!!! paying into there social security fund!!!!!!!!!! free education!!!!!!!!! free welfare and not a citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!
put or militia to protect our borders ans see how many are made to turn there a__s around or shot in the process of being warned and breaking our laws!!!!!!!!!
sorry your goverment is worthless for you the people of your country. dont come over here and take a free ride,our jobs so you can live 10 brothers and sister in one apartment and destroy it like you do in your own country. you bring more crime into our country. stay home and destroy your own people.
abide by our laws and become a citizen---keep your manhood in your own country--dont come over here and pass your seed along for another free ride.
we have to deal with enough of you already.
go militia!!!!!!!!! stop these illegals
to bad all the USA wont adopt the law of oklahoma making it illegal for you to live in there state!!!!!!!!!!--no welfare--no free education and no medical ride.
sorry just needed to vent over this matter:mg:
no more illegals:thumbs_do


----------



## littleyellow (Feb 1, 2007)

cynic said:


> The funny thing about what the Amendment says and all the new "buzz" words available.. Take a group of citizens protecting there property from law enforcement intrusion, The are not longer armed citizens but rather a group of armed assailants  that because the government didn't recognized them or their beliefs outside of the norm.. Now remember we are not fighting a well defined army in Irag we are fighting Militia commonly referred to as Terrorist cells. So make of it what you like, bottom line is if we are defending the country and its view points we are militia. If we do not defend it we are traitors. If we fight with the troops we are militia, but if we have to fight against the forces to protect our rights we are terrorists..
> So when the fight begins we R


You nailed that one


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

*Believe in the founding fathers... Give me Liberty or Give me Death*

Patrick Henry March 23, 1775.

Give in, Give up, or Give Back....


----------

