Second Amendment Rights, Pease Vote
 

Unfortunately the way they have the poll worded shows that they have absolutely no idea what any of the Amendments mean.

The Constitution does not give us any Rights. We have natural Rights that are inherent from God, the Great Spirit, Nature (pick your favorite and insert here). The roll of the Constitution was to limit Government, and prevent the Government from impinging on the rights and power of the States and People.

It is sad that in this day and age that so many no longer understand, or seem to care, just what the Constitution is, or what it is supposed to do. We have allowed our Government to become a bloated, spoiled child and the steps needed to bring sanity and discipline back to the forefront are going to cause a lot of pain and grief on all sides.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

Absolutely spot on prefect response, layria.

I recently attended a class on Political Behavior and that was one of the "gotcha" questions from the professor that only I and a few others answered correctly. The Constitution doesn't "give" us any rights, they are ours by virtue of being American.

You are thinking too deeply for the
purpose of this survey. The writer,
I doubt, is not that clever, just worded
his question poorly. As per the implied
intent, the correct response is "YES".

The poll has been hit and hit hard -- 97% yes.

Well I am probably going to get slammed for this, but I am one of the 3% of people who said "No" to this poll. I believe the constitution gives us the right to have an army/military but that does not transfer to the individual person. More of a group "right" thing.

JMHO

Just like any other "main stream" poll, it is worded poorly and slanted. Just like those polls in the pre-election fevor, "Do you want Obama or McCain" for President. They never give you "other" options (Libertarian, Green Party, etc.) because they want to make the poll come out like THEY want it to.

I also agree with the lack of education regarding The Contstitution....those "rights" were supposed to be for what the government was NOT supposed to take AWAY from us, as they should be our natural rights anyhow.

It's sad that so many people think that "The Government" can dictate which human / natural rights we "can" or "cannot" have.

As a previous poster pointed out, the constitution doesn't GIVE us anything. It simply enumerates the rights that we already have.

Having said that, NO ONE questions whether the other 9 amendments are individual rights or collective rights. EVERYONE agrees that they are individual rights. If the other 9 are universally understood to be refering to individual rights, why would a "collective right" be stuck in the middle of the others? It makes no sense.

The whole purpose to the first 10 amendments is to limit government and insure the rights of the PEOPLE.

Also, the Supreme Court has just ruled that the amendment does indeed guarantee the INDIVIDUAL'S right to own firearms.

No not a slam to you, just your typical anti-gun misinterpretation of the constitution. If firearms posession was intended for a standing army as you would like to be brain-washed into believing , than it would have been laid out in the Constitution. Since, we, as revolutionists did not want a standing army, it was not set forth in the Constitution to have a standing army.That is why it is a "Right of the people", which is the citizens of the United States! You do not have to be a citizen to serve in the free standing Army. (except an officer, correct me if I'm wrong)
Just out of curiosity, how many here actually had ancestors here during the Revolution to fight for or against these rights?

I have a direct ancestor who fought for the Continental Army in the Revolution. Can't remember his name right now; I'd have to go look it up.

4 branches of our family came to this country in 1630 with the Winthrop Fleet, 2 branches came during the Palatine Migration and yet another branch were one of the first settlers in New Amsterdam (now New York). Many of their descendants were active and fought during the War for Independance.:hobbyhors

We even have one branch that were loyalists and went to Canada during the war. 100 years later most of their descendants had migrated back to the United States.

In our direct family line we only have 1 branch that did not come over before the War for Independence. My GGrandfather's Maternal Grandparents came over from Hesse Cassel in the 1840's.

They would be appalled to see the depths to which our Country has fallen. The freedoms that they fought so hard to try and secure to us, we through apathy have allowed to slip through our fingers. It was our duty to ensure that the Government did not overstep its bounds.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

I DID! (fight for)
would also like to point out that I also had a few ancestors here before those ancestors got here long before!

All gun control does is unarm the law abideing citizens simular to the way
locks only keep out the honest person! the criminals will still be armed and
the police (wich seem to get closer to the criminals all the time)

Today your nieghbor and tomarrow you!!

If you dont like guns I suggest you become a Canadian.(no offense ment to the canadians at least.)

Some of my ancestors were sent by Queen Elizabeth to explore and map lands that were called the Colony of Virginia. We'd been here for well over a century by the time of the uprising.

And in good American mixing pot tradition, some of my family came to the US just a few years ago.

Ninian Beall Hamilton of North Carolina. He is considered a patriot by the DAR.

All of my ancestors were here before the Revolutionary War, some by at least 125 years.

All you have to do is read what the founding fathers said about the 2ndA to see that they wanted everyone armed. This was to be a last line of defense against an oppressive or tyrannical government. Kind of a moot point now since we've changed from a republic to a democracy. Now the majority can vote away the rights of the minority.

BTW, is this an old poll? The date in the address line says November 2007.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert A. Heinlein

Have you ever noticed that the majority of the really bad shootings all seem to take place in "Gun Free Zones"

If a person knows he lives in a society where the great majority of persons around him can and will, without pause, meet any violence he chooses to enact with violence in return, he is going to be very careful with regard to his location and environment when committing his crime if he has any hope of getting away with it. He isn’t going to walk into a bar and shoot someone, because the other patrons will detain him at the least, or shoot him in return. He will not get away with his crime unless he plans carefully and takes pains to keep his crime out of the public eye. This means an armed society is not free of crime, it is, however, better able to respond and deter crime, and it means that persons will likely not be committing crime in full view of the public. There will still be murders, and rapes, and theft, and assaults, but you won’t have a whole lot of events like a kid shooting up a classroom, or a gang beating a person on the street, or a husband dragging his wife out her place of business to die, because others will respond, with force, and not when the sirens arrive, but right now, as it happens. If the act of being impolite can lead to my death in very short order, I will take pains to be polite and I will carefully weigh any decision to commit a crime.

A polite society need not be armed, and an armed society need not be polite, but neither will survive well or long unless both conditions are met. To be fair, arming everyone will not create a polite society, however, allowing those who wish to be armed to carry a weapon they have demonstrated proficiency with, and who have demonstrated the ability to obey the law and exhibit restraint, is a good start. The fact is, through, that until we give up this idea that the police are all we need to protect us, and we begin to reinstall a sense of civic obligation that goes beyond working at the soup kitchen or putting some money in a kettle during Christmas, we will continue to have an impolite society.

When seconds matter, the Police are only minutes away.

Recall, though, that the constitution was written over two hundred years ago. We have amended it plenty of times because of dated ideas. I know a lot of people use guns responsibly, but in D.C. people use them mainly to kill other people. Owning a rifle for hunting is different because it's not as easy to conceal. Some people like former criminals just don't deserve such a lethal weapon.

I just believe that NO one needs hand guns or semi automatic weapons. Rifles, when used for hunting, I don't have as much of a problem with (although I am anti-hunting, but that is a whole other topic! LOL).

When you have a spare 10 minutes, watch this video. You might be surprised by what semi-auto actually means.

All I can say is I hope and pray that a situation never occurs in your life that would force you to change your mind.

Well, when I voted there were more than three quarters of a million votes before me and the poll is running 97% in favor of it being an individual right.

Very good.

.....Alan.

Sadly, it has. When I was in college, a drug dealer lived next door to me and pulled a gun on me and a friend. THAT is one reason why I think no one should have guns. So not everyone reacts to those types of situation seeing validation for gun rights--I see it as reasons for stricter gun laws and harsher penalties!

We have had laws for a long time that don't allow criminals (ie, drug dealers) to have guns. How well did it work in your case? I prefer to protect myself and my family on my own. I guess others prefer to let something written in a statute book protect them.

No offense intended but you don't sound like you are very knowledgeable on the topic.

It would be great if the dilemmas of living together in a society could all be solved with our hearts but ultimately the cold hard reality of logic needs to be applied.

Actually I was already aware of what semi automatic versus automatic weapons are--I did watch the video though, but my opinion is the same.

You certainly have a right to your opinion, and as long as you are not rying to force it on me, we will get along just fine. I have freinds who are vegetarian, and we are more than happy to adjust our menu to suit their needs.

Having said that, I find a handgun comes in handy around my homestead. It is not always easy to keep a rifle or shotgun handy, so a pistol I can get to when needed comes in handy.

My kids and I also enjoy many hours plinking at the range. Guns are only evil and scary if you don't know them.

Finally, many hunting rifles and shotguns are semi-auto meaning that each pull of the trigger fires one shot. Skeet shooters tend to like it because this action reduces felt recoil. Deer hunters like it for a quick humane second shot, so they don't have wounded game in the woods.

I hope you can see that we are not all radicals.

I am not trying to force my believes on anyone--just stating my opinion and I don't think all pro-gun people are radicals--not even a majority! I just think that there is a clear distinction between having the RIGHT to do/have something and it being morally/ethically sound to do/have those same things. Just because I have a right to do something doesn't mean it is the correct thing to do.

as long as the citizens are armed it goes a long way towards keeping the government polite. And again the criminals will still be armed regardless of laws. Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the laws! with that said you have folks that will become criminals with the gun bans because they will not give up their weapons. Well my arsenal is for hunting and I don't own any hand guns or assault weapons doesn't mean I wouldn't mind having some.I need to be practical with my money. doesn't mean I cant protect myself with those said hunting weapons just means that there are better options for self defense. Why should I or any other law abiding citizen be restricted from owning them.
as far as the constitution none of those Ideas are outdated and none of the meanings of the words has changed the amendments where covered in the main body I belive they where added for the most part to clarify and limit what the constitution already granted and guaranteed. those who attack the language of the constitution as well as the nature and intent are the lowest of the low. they would upsurp the powers granted but deny those rights that are guaranteed. the constitution is a contract and should you only
wish to pick and choose in my mind you void the whole thing.

I think you have that backwards (minority can vote away the rights of the majority)

majority rules has not been in effect for a long time!

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who did not." -Anonymous

JMHO,
Dan

I belive that was said by Thomas Jefferson

I also like..

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

How can there be any question as to what the 2nd ammendment was intended? Maybe one from the guy who wrote the dang constitution?

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison