USA Today Poll on Gun ownership

[Wingfoot]

USA Today Poll on Gun ownership

Obama's new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2ndAmendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.

This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know.

Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.

Here's what you need to do:

First - vote on this one.

Second - launch it to other folks and have THEM vote -
then we will see if the results get published.

The Question is:

"Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

Click on the link below and PLEASE vote

USATODAY.com - Quick Question

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ProfessionalLocator]

Unfortunately he is correct, the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to own firearms. In fact the 2nd Amendment gives the power to regulate weapons to the government. This is because this amendment is not a stand alone part of the Constitution and refers back to the body of the Constitution.

As a gun owner and proponent of people carrying firearms for self defense, both in home and in public, I wish the Constitution was written differently. But wishful thinking does not justify saying the Constitution provides a right that it does not. I view these 2nd Amendment gives you weapon ownership rights people as self defeating.

We need to amend the Constitution if gun ownership rights are to be established, this is the productive path to follow.

I also believe this discussion belongs in the Politics forum.

[AULupstate]

I'm under the impression that it's INTERPRITATION is the biggest problem.

'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'

In the beggining of this country there was NO standing Army, therefore everyone was considered militia (for all intents and purposes). Now we hear the word militia and what do we thing? Whacko's living on a compound waiting and training for the 'end' times and the coming of Jesus or hate groups plotting a race war.

However.

You get to the part of The PEOPLE. Does this mean EVERYONE or only those in a militia???? We see how the Government deals with militia's.

I think I will just keep my guns. If they become illegal then I will become a criminal, but I will be a criminal WITH guns. Those who would do the 'right' thing and turn theirs in are only serving themselves up on a platter to be eaten by the animals who intend to do them harm.

I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6 any day of the week.

[Wingfoot]

'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.'

I think I will just keep my guns. If they become illegal then I will become a criminal, but I will be a criminal WITH guns. Those who would do the 'right' thing and turn theirs in are only serving themselves up on a platter to be eaten by the animals who intend to do them harm.

I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6 any day of the week.

Hey Buddy - You're my hero! Luv Ya Man!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ProfessionalLocator]

I'm under the impression that it's INTERPRITATION is the biggest problem.

'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'

In the beggining of this country there was NO standing Army, therefore everyone was considered militia (for all intents and purposes). Now we hear the word militia and what do we thing? Whacko's living on a compound waiting and training for the 'end' times and the coming of Jesus or hate groups plotting a race war.

However.

You get to the part of The PEOPLE. Does this mean EVERYONE or only those in a militia???? We see how the Government deals with militia's.

I think I will just keep my guns. If they become illegal then I will become a criminal, but I will be a criminal WITH guns. Those who would do the 'right' thing and turn theirs in are only serving themselves up on a platter to be eaten by the animals who intend to do them harm.

I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6 any day of the week.

That is the 2nd Amendemnt but there is a preceding part of the Constitution that defines militia and what powers government has over the militia.



“Section 8 - Powers of Congress


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

When it comes to weapons that is covered by the word “arming” which means the federal government may dictate what arms may or may not be used by the state militia. To this end the federal government has not banned gun ownership by individuals but under it’s authority has restricted the ownership of certain weapons, for one example fully automatic weapons.

Before going on it is important to understand the word militia as it is used today. At the beginning of the 20th century the various state militias were in disarray. There were varying degrees of training and a large variety of weapons used which caused logistic problems. A series of legislation led by Charles Dick, called the Dick Acts, established more cohesive state militias and renamed them the National Guard. So when you speak of the state militias today you are speaking of the National Guard.


We also must understand that firearms relative to our discussion are not mentioned in the US Constitution. What is mentioned is only “arms” which covers the spectrum from edged weapons, to firearms to bombs to flamethrowers to poison gas to you name it.

When it comes to firearm bans either in the home or in the streets these are all created by the states or other local authority excepting some federal lands. The states have the US Constitutional authority to administer their local militia / National Guard. Once we get to the states it gets more complicated because each state has it’s own Constitution and this varies as to defining the militia in their state.

There is no doubt the militia and it’s needs during the time of the writing of the US Constitution was different than today. We can argue the intent of the various individual sthat authored the US Constitution and it’s amendments for either providing for prohibiting the ownership of weapons or for no prohibition of the ownership of weapons. In the end we will always be stuck with how the US Constitution, and the various state Constitutions, are actually written. And therein lies the rub.

2nd Amendment has become a rally cry because it meets the need for a rally cry, it is short and simple. But the real subject is not so short or so simple. 2nd Amendment rights actually means any type of weapon devised and has brought to the effort whacko’s that want grenades, flamethrowers, you name it brought into the effot. Yes, I did debate a person who said it was their Constitutional right to defend their suburban town home with landmines and grenades. It is the involvement of such individuals that discredit the effort and besmirch those that advocate gun ownership and gun carry. The simple rally cry of 2nd Amendment automatically opens the doors to the whacko’s which is self defeating to the effort.

The core of the rally cry 2nd Amendment is that the Amendment in itself does not grant weapons ownership and when this wall is hit in the courts it brings the effort to a sudden halt. This means that resources that could have been used to otherwise bring gun ownership and carry to people is wasted and the goal is not obtained.

In the end running around demanding “2nd Amendment rights” is self-defeating. The goal can be obtained through other efforts as evident in the carry laws currently in place in various states and counties, the path to success lays there.

Once you get enough carry and ownership legislation in place then you have enough public opinion and support to seek the vote to modify the US Constitution. The only way to achieve this goal is significant success at the state level first.

[AULupstate]

I agree with you proloc, that people should not 'own' grenades, landmines, flame throwers, rocket launchers etc. etc. . I personally do not see the point in spending money on such things when the U.S. Army taught me how to make them from everyday household items.

I can make guns as well but home made just isn't as cool as bought from the store!!!!

I also have the coveted 'concealled carry' permit in NY (City as well as State).

Also let me tell you a little something about Gun Laws in general. They ONLY HINDER the law abiding. They are CRAP and are only a tool to becken the SHEEP so we all can live in nirvana. Again, CRAP!!!!

Bad Guys DON'T CARE about ANY LAW, more specific, Gun Laws.

I think I would rather make someone shit their pants and have a moment of realization that they just f**ked with the wrong person/residence by staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge. So the vey LAST thought going through their mind (other than the 00 buck shot) would be 'WOW I'm a F**KING idiot'.

So IF the Constitution becomes the toilet paper it is being treated as and the world becomes some douche bag hippies wet dream where all the bad guns are gone the Government can have the ones that are registered to me (3). When they leave, the other FIVE will replace them.

[ProfessionalLocator]

I agree with you that the current gun laws disarm the public and give free reign to the criminal who by nature ignores the gun laws.

And yes my Remington 870 for home defense is loaded with 00.

I keep Glaser Safety Slugs for my .44

The question centers on if the US Constitution makes these gun laws un-Constitutional.

If there should or should not be any gun laws at all is another, separate topic.

I agree with you proloc, that people should not 'own' grenades, landmines, flame throwers, rocket launchers etc. etc. . I personally do not see the point in spending money on such things when the U.S. Army taught me how to make them from everyday household items.

I can make guns as well but home made just isn't as cool as bought from the store!!!!

I also have the coveted 'concealled carry' permit in NY (City as well as State).

Also let me tell you a little something about Gun Laws in general. They ONLY HINDER the law abiding. They are CRAP and are only a tool to becken the SHEEP so we all can live in nirvana. Again, CRAP!!!!

Bad Guys DON'T CARE about ANY LAW, more specific, Gun Laws.

I think I would rather make someone shit their pants and have a moment of realization that they just f**ked with the wrong person/residence by staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge. So the vey LAST thought going through their mind (other than the 00 buck shot) would be 'WOW I'm a F**KING idiot'.

So IF the Constitution becomes the toilet paper it is being treated as and the world becomes some douche bag hippies wet dream where all the bad guns are gone the Government can have the ones that are registered to me (3). When they leave, the other FIVE will replace them.

[AULupstate]

And as I said, or made a point to. I DON'T care about the legality of it because I live in the real world. I follow the laws that are on the books. If they change and my family or myself are TOLD to be defenseless by some c*ck sucker in Washington, again I DON'T care. I WILL fight criminal action WITH criminal action.

My 'interpritation' of the 2nd amendment IS that I can own firearms that the government 'deams' legal for me to own. If I want a fully automatic weapon or a Ma Duece .50, I will move to a class 3 state. I am more than happy with a semi-auto M-4 (AR-15), I practice EXPERT Gun Control by one round down range at a time.

[TheCableVine]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give the people the right to own and carry guns. What good would the guns do if the govt. kept them until the time a militia is needed. What if suddenly a militia was needed and the armory where the guns were stored was taken over by the enemy? Not a good scenario. So, the people keep the guns in their homes or take them with them when they go somewhere. It is simple.

Nothing is said about restricting the use of guns. Section 8 doesn't say that the militia can only keep and bear 'arms' in a time of need. Some say that the 2nd amendment is the only amendment with a qualifier in it. Something that makes an excuse for the existence of the 2nd amendment. I believe it is there to ensure that everyone understand the importance of the 2nd amendment. The arguments approach the 2nd amendment as if not having guns is the norm and owning guns is abnormal or extreme. I believe owning a gun is the norm and not owning them is an option.

I did a report on gun control while I was in college. All dictators take guns away from the people before they really get serious about suppressing the people.

[Wingfoot]

Lest we forget the FBI's church burning at Waco Texas where, under the direction of the CIA's 4 member “wet” team who was operating under cover of the “Delta Force,” 86 American men, women and children civilians died because of a botched gun confiscation effort.

It all started when the BATFE wanted to confirm rumors there was a fully-automatic, 50-caliber machine gun (owned by one of the Davidian members who was a licensed gun dealer) on the Branch Davidian complex. It is legal to own this weapon in Texas. The BATFE was to confiscate this weapon, "IF" found, because there was not a $200.00 permit of ownership registered in the state of Texas. As soon as the rear doors opened on the BATFE's enclosed goose-neck trailers full of it's armed agents, the US military helicopters, that were swarming the complex, sprayed the BATFE's trailers and the Davidian's complex with machine gun fire. Then, all HELL broke loose! At the end of that fateful day, Monday, 19 April 1993, without any crime-scene investigation, government bulldozers scrapped the burning embers into a big pile, burnt bodies and all, and never found a 50-caliber machine gun.............

Today, Obama is working closely with the George Soros-backed Australian Rebecca Peters. She wants to introduce a gun ban into the USA, and on to a global scale, as she did in Australia.

Peters is the architect of the gun confiscation of Australians. Globalist Bill CIinton, as President, sent members of the U.S. armed forces to assist the Australians in their 1996 gun confiscation effort. No wonder America is disliked by so many. Australia is now a nation suffering consecutive rogue government's micro-managing Aussie's lives.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AULupstate]

I use to belong to the NRA and support the efforts of them. About 10 years ago I wanted to become a certified firearms instructor. Part of the requirements was being certified through the NRA.

The WHOLE time I was at their course I wasn't taught JACK SHIT about being an instructor. I was however BOMBARDED with their propoganda, scare tactics, rhetoric and idoctrination. I got so fed up with it I quit the course and demanded my money back. I cancelled my subscriptions and never re-upped my membership.

It seems to me the NRA is JUST AS BAD as the Anti-Gun nuts out there and that IS a very sad thing.

[1idejim]

I also believe this discussion belongs in the Politics forum.

this is not a political nor a leagle issue.

gun ownership is a right no one will take from me....................

if i were to have an opinion, it would be that EVERY CHILD SHOULD BE ISSUED A 1911 AT BIRTH and they should be encourged to use it often and accurately.

[Mke]

mmmmmm.......1911...... *drool*

[yahoo]

nothing else obama would do would surprise me ???? what an idiot!

[ProfessionalLocator]

this is not a political nor a leagle issue.

gun ownership is a right no one will take from me....................

if i were to have an opinion, it would be that EVERY CHILD SHOULD BE ISSUED A 1911 AT BIRTH and they should be encourged to use it often and accurately.

A great firearm and a timeless classic. Although replaced by the military with the 9mm Beretta some special units still use it due to it's superior firepower.

It is also considered one of the safest guns to have in house with children due to their difficulty firing it. There is the ersatz "muzzle safety" where it's design will not fire with pressure on the muzzle. There is the lever safety to disengage and the grip safety. For small children their hands will not operate the grip safety. Plus to get it ready to fire they have to pull that slide back and put a round into the chamber. I am an adult but with relatively small hands and find it difficult to operate so I stick with a .44 revolver.