Yet another of our rights is hanging in the balance...

[olde_fashioned]

The US Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Those of you who are concerned at potentially losing one of our rights that should be inalienable, please, please pray that the judges will make the right decision.

"The issue has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- and therefore subject perhaps to strict government regulation."

Read the rest of the article HERE

I for one believe in Original Intent -- surely the Founding Fathers did not believe that we only have a right to possess weapons if we're in a civilian militia! This is a pathetic attempt to disarm the masses, and violate our Constitutional rights! The Bible says that God answers prayer, and hopefully in this instance it will avert a potentially disastrous decision.

Note: I am screening comments on this post. If you want to comment with either an agreeing or disagreeing opinion, then that is more than fine with me, only I am tired of getting loud-mouthed trolls trying to start fires and fights. I'm not trying to suppress anyone's freedom of speech, just trying to save myself a headache.

Comments

[ladyneferankh.livejournal.com]

You know, I've always been a fan of laws--regulating gun ownership--like if someone has a past criminal record etc;,but taking away the right of the average, decent, citizen to own a firearm if they so choose? No way.

Oh God, sometimes I get so scared.

P.S.
I can't sleep tonight, I'll be "around" if you want to talk. :'(

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I completely agree that a violent criminal should no longer have the right to own a gun, but other than that, I think there should be litle or no gun control laws. They're only going to affect law-abiding citizens, not the criminals!

I know, tell me about it.

P.S. I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier!

[ladyneferankh.livejournal.com]

Well, I meant other laws "regulating" gun control, because I feel uneasy when I read about how some people teach rather young childern to use guns, then again, as I've often said "If people had more common sense, there'd be no need for so many laws :P .

It's OK, I did wind up collapsing of weariness later, but perhaps we can schedule a chat for this Friday?

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Now I'm just curious -- what is wrong with teaching kids how to handle weapons? Shouldn't they know how the work and how dangerous they can be, if used improperly? I'll wager that those kids who sneak their dad's guns and then hurt someone by accident were never properly taught or allowed to use the guns themselves.

PM'ing you...

[sabrinafair2.livejournal.com]

I personally agree with gun control. Only because I'm not comfortable not knowing who has a gun when you are walking down the street.

And I know how people point out that a murderer will find some way to find a gun, but I also wonder why does someone buy a gun if they don't intend to use it? I mean if you want to go and hunt that's ok, but why buy a hand gun?

And I don't like the whole approach of going back to how the Constitution was originally written. If we followed that, then slavery would still ok, women would still not be able to vote and the CIA, FDA, and several other government organizations wouldn't be in place. As time changes, new laws have to be created and old ones have to be adapted.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

But even if guns become restricted, how do you know the guy walking down the street doesn't have one anyway?

You buy one for self-protection, the same reason you buy mace or a tazer. And why a handgun? Because it's smaller and lighter than a shotgun, and doesn't hurt your shoulder when you try to use it. ;-) Plus it fits in a purse.

Without stirring a debate, why are you against Original Intent? I'm not saying we have to be legalistic and not allow anything "extra" added to the Constitution, but if it says we can, we should not be able to try and say we cannot.

[sabrinafair2.livejournal.com]

The reason I feel so strongly about it perhaps is the fact that my great-aunt died from an accident involving a gun. So in that since I'm completely biased and probably too stubborn to really evaluate other views objectively:(.


I don't believe in original intent, because you could argue very validly that their original intent of the First Amendment was only Christian dominations should be tolerated. In short they were a very bigoted group of men, but I know that that's how most people thought at that time. And although they were great men during their time, I would have no doubt that their bigotry wouldn't be tolerated today.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I am very sorry about your great-aunt. That's horrible, and I can understand your apprehension of weapons because of that. However I still humbly submit that even if a loved one died because of an auto accident, that doesn't mean we should ban cars.

I do not believe their original intent was only to protect the rights of Christians, and I strongly disagree to their being called "bigoted". We can't judge people from centuries past by today's standards. (which, by considering the moral state of this country at present, is hardly a "standard" at all) Political corruption, abortion, gay marriage, the murder of helpless innocents such as Teri Schiavo and rampant immorality is all happily tolerated today. Surely being a conservative "religious bigot" is a lesser sin than any one of the above.

[greenlee-g.livejournal.com]

Im not a US citizin, and so im not informed on the debate in its entirety. What i will add (as devils advocate) is that i agree strongly with the right to choose, bear arms, protect oneself if you are able, trained and responsible enough to do so. But who gets to judge that? Which is where laws and rules governing usage comes in.

In South Africa, crime is one of our biggest problems. The availability of weapons is almost ridiculous. Perhaps your government's rationale is that by making it less accessible to everyone, it may help with the problem of availability and accessibility of arms in general??

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone should be the judge of who's fit and who's not -- unless a body is a convicted criminal or mentally unstable, everyone should be able to purchase a means of self-defense.

The bad guys will always have guns. They always have, and they always will. It's just another law to break, to them. The question is whether or not the innocent will be allowed to have them as well in order to defend themselves and their families. Guns will only be made less accessible to the law-abiding citizens.

[chief-85.livejournal.com]

I'm not from America, I'm from Australia and I am personally against anyone being able to own a gun/weapon. Australia has actually banned the ownership of firearms, after a man opened fire in a small town called Port Arthur, killing 35 people and injuring 37 others. People can apply for a license for things like farming but other than that they're banned.

On a more personal level, the idea that just anyone could carry a weapon scares the hell out of me. I know that some people believe that you'd be able to defend yourself if you carried a weapon, but then if they weren't allowed then the problem wouldn't arise in the first place. Saying that though, I know that would only happen in a perfect world, but I think it would help in reducing the numbers.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I understand that in Australia you may have different ideas than here in America (where we highly value our rights and liberties, and always have) If one of the people in Small Arthur had had a gun, don't you think he would have been able to shoot -- and stop -- the murderer? Who knows how many lives might have been saved...

"...if they weren't allowed then the problem wouldn't arise in the first place."
Forgive me for being so blunt, but this is completely unfounded. What makes you think that a hardened criminal would suddenly decide to obey the laws and give up his gun, just because it's suddenly become illegal? The wrong-doers in this world will always have weapons! They are not going to care if they're not supposed to have them. They are only going to see that their victims are going to be defenseless.

I watched a program on this where the reporter interviewed violent criminals in prison, and asked them if the law was changed would they not have guns anymore? All of the men replied that THEY would still have guns, only their intended victims would be completely unarmed and therefore easier targets. They then also replied that they would much prefer things this way, as it makes it easier on them. I for one believe that crime rates would only increase, as the bad people of this world realize they are now more at liberty and less at risk to be injured while perpetrating their evil deeds.

[fair-terentia.livejournal.com]

I must say, from my vantage point across the pond, I find it very strange that the USA grants people the right to carry arms. Again, I really don't know very much about the context in the USA, so I am speaking with much ignorance.

I'm not actually certain exactly what the firearms regulations are, but it is illegal for just anybody to possess a gun. People who shoot as a hobby or hunt can get a strictly controlled license. There's enough gun crime in the country with kids as well as adults tragically shooting each other when guns are only available on the black market for me to feel very scared of what would happen if they were legal. If I was walking down the street and that the dodgy looking man on the corner had a legal right to carry a gun, I would be really terrified. Then I would have a right to carry a gun too to "defend" myself, but I'd only feel that need if I knew there was a chance that someone else might shoot first. And then I might shoot someone because I thought they *might* shoot me, even if they didn't. No, I think it's a terrible idea giving civilians guns. UNLESS it's very, very tightly regulated so only the people who do clay pidgeon shooting (or the like) are allowed them and can only use them on specific clay pidgeon shooting sites.

I appreciate that it's in your Constitution and I can't really understand what that means as we don't really have the equivalent in Britain, but I really believe that documents from another era cannot and should not be interpreted literally if the society has moved onwards. I feel that if the Constitution is out of date, it should be updated. On the other hand, I really can't see this from an American perspective, so I do know you must (and do) feel very differently.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose part of our desire to keep such rights stems from the fact that throughout our entire history we've lived in a land that was largely untamed, and guns are a means of security, self-defense, and protection. I think I may safely say that we are a very independent and self-reliant people, and the very idea that one of our "inalienable" rights is being threatened causes us to rise up in indignation and anger. You've got to remember, we fought long and hard for these rights, and countless men died to secure, and then preserve them for us.

I humbly submit that that "dodgy looking man on the corner" might very well already have a weapon, legal or not. Now consider the idea that if your fellow honest, good, upright citizens also had weapons, they then would be in a position to interfere with (and prevent) any wrong-doings this "dodgy" man might be tempted to commit.

If our society has moved onwards, does that mean we should abolish certain rights because some bureaucrat deems them as "unneeded" now? And who gets to decide what laws and freedoms are "out of date" and which are not? I am very uncomfortable with the thought of the elected few having our very freedom in their grimy money-grubbing hands.

[jyms.livejournal.com]

I don't really agree with citizens bearing arms. It gives people who can't handle the responsibility of carrying arms (like kids, mentally unstable people and criminals) the opportunity to use them , usually for worse. Just look at all those school shooting incidents. The kids just snitched their grandparent's guns from the cupboard and sent tens of innocents to their deaths. If arms are to be allowed for the sake of self-defense, strict rules must be put in place at least to prevent such tragedies from happening. I honestly wonder if the right to carry arms saves or kills more people.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Those kids that shot up their schools were not law-abiding citizens. Do you think that a blood-thirsty student would be stopped by a mere piece of paper that says he can no longer buy a gun legally? And if other good students, or even teachers, had had guns of their own, then so many lives would not have been lost.

Without a doubt, the right to carry arms saves lives. If you were woken up late one night by a violent criminal who had broken into your home and threatened you with a gun, who would you want coming to your rescue? Unarmed policemen or policemen with guns?

[jyms.livejournal.com]

I have absolutely no objection to policemen carrying guns around. ;)

Clarification: I base a lot of my opinions on the situation in my own country - Singapore (which i think is well known for lack of freedom of speech? or maybe it's not even known.) where I am, civilians aren't allowed guns. and we're pretty happy. I don't think anyone's ever been killed by a gun since this 'ancient' ruling. this of course is due to two things: 1. we're all of 65 km square. The police can easily catch anyone who's got a gun. The population is under 5 million so it isn't very tough either to keep tabs on people. 2. We've got a pretty decent government so they won't be making our lil army turn their guns on us. I understand that different countries have different situations.

I believe in ideals. To me guns represent violence, whether used in attack or defense. I'd rather they didn't exist. Unfortunately, we need them due to practical issues. To kill so you won't be killed. "survival of the fittest" is a popular worldly philosophy. To be sure, you can kill with your bare hands. It's reusable too. But guns are the favoured mode. Giving people guns just evens out the odds between victim and attacker. Bad guys have guns, good guys must have guns too. When bad guys invent spandy new weapons of doom, all potential victims must have it too. To even out the odds.

If US needs these gun laws, you can have it. It just makes me sad that we need to stop ourselves from killing each other in the first place.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

Well that's good.

Is there a difference between true happiness and "ignorance is bliss"? If citizens of Singapore are ignorant of even free speech, then they won't even notice it's missing, whereas in America, if even the slightest thing is censored, we cry foul. ;-)

Of course most of us would probably prefer a world where violent weapons were unnecessary, but sadly, since Utopia is a figment of our imaginations until Jesus returns to this earth, we are stuck with imperfection. Objecting to guns because we would rather they didn't exist would be like objecting to prisons, because we would wish there weren't any murderers or rapists. The fact is that there are people in this world who cannot be stopped by anything short of a bullet, and that is a very sad thing indeed.

[maidenjedi]

"The beauty of the Second Amendment Right is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

Apparently, I am in the minority here.

I believe I should have the right to own and carry a gun. I believe any law-abiding citizen of a free country should be able to. I believe being able to protect oneself is a natural right, and that government has no right to infringe upon it.

In Washington DC, they banned handguns, and the gun-related crime rose dramatically. Why? Because people had no ability to protect themselves.

In Killeen, TX, a gunman walked into a diner and killed over a dozen people, including the parents of a woman who happened to own a handgun. Because this was before our concealed-carry law, her gun was out in her truck, where it would do no good.

I believe fully that I have the right to protect myself, through whatever means necessary and available, including a handgun I can carry in my purse.

As far as original intent - since the Second Amendment has never been overturned by another amendment and is not contradicted by any other clause or point in the Constitution, it is 100% necessary to follow original intent. It doesn't change just because time passes.

OKay, off my soapbox. All I really wanted to say was I agree with you!

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

(love your icon BTW!!) That's the spirit! ;-P

I'm afraid my response to you is rather short -- because I agree with everything you said! :-D Well spoken, and thank you for the comment.

[sbuchler.livejournal.com]

I was always under the impression that the founding father's original intent was to protect the states rights to have (and arm) militias. What is the evidence to support the idea that their original intent was for the individual right to bear arms?

In legal terms it's never been ruled that the 2nd amendment _does_ grant individual rights. The supreme court (both this one and earlier ones) have been very consistent about making _no_ ruling on the individual right to bear arms at all (either pro or con). Past precedent has been consistent in saying that the 2nd amendment does grant the collective right to bear arms, which doesn't necessarily have bearing on the question of individual rights.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

And I might ask, what is the evidence to support the idea that the original intent was for only a civilian militia to possess arms? That can work both ways. Considering the times, the Founders themselves, and the rest of the Constitution, I believe that they granted us ALL the right to individually possess a weapon.

[sbuchler.livejournal.com]

The wording of the amendment itself; if it's an individual right, there is no need to talk about militias.

"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."

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

If I recall correctly, most of the men in the militia supplied their own weapons...

[midenianscholar.livejournal.com]

(Good girl for screening!)

Like drugs, guns will always be available for anyone who wants to get them (through illegal means). All this does is take away the law-abiding citizen's defense.

Argh.

(Edited because I actually have several examples. The below are all true stories.)

There was a woman, about 35/40, who went into a store with her elderly parents. She was in the habit of carrying a gun in her purse. A man came into the store and shouted at everyone to get on the floor. He proceeded to kill them off one by one. The police were either slow in coming, or no one had a chance to sneak a call. The woman reached for her purse--Only to discover she'd left it in the car. Her father kept saying, "I have to do something. I have to stop it." He rose before she could stop him and ran at the man. The man shot and killed him. The woman discovered there was a hole in the back wall, through which people were escaping. She grabbed her mother's arm and made for it. She got out, turned around--her mother had not followed her. Later she found out that her mother had gone to her father, and cradled him in her arms. The shooter turned to her, and she looked right up at him and closed her eyes. He shot and killed her. This woman could have stopped him at the first death. Instead there was something like 16 people killed, including her parents.

A man heard someone breaking in one night. He grabbed his gun from under the bed--he had a wife and two children. He ran down the stairs, and the criminal threatened him with a gun. He shot the man and injured him. When the police came, it was the houseowner who served fifteen years, because his gun license was expired. The man who broke in was out in five years.

Only a couple of months ago, there was a church shooting. An insane man was shooting down anyone. Many of the security, though they did have guns, could not shoot him. (This is what my dad is training people in right now--it is a human instinct not to shoot, so when you take people into a hostile situation, they tend to shoot too high, too low, or take a job helping their buddy instead of shooting.) A woman security guard heard the gunfire and came up the hall, praying intensely that God would give her the strength to do whatever she needed to do. She stepped out and cried, "Surrender!" And killed the man. She probably stopped hundreds of innocent lives from being taken. As it was, there were only a few injuries.

I really wonder how many people wouldn't have died at VA Tech if someone had had a gun.

(Last edit! I swear!)

Oh, and there's this fun fact: A lot of people say guns should be outlawed because many children are killed every year by a gun accident/a bad guy with a gun. But, actually, there are most cases of children drowning in the bathtub than there are of children being killed due to a gun.

[enchantinglight.livejournal.com]

Like drugs, guns will always be available for anyone who wants to get them (through illegal means). All this does is take away the law-abiding citizen's defense.

That's exactly the point I was going to make. The "bad guys" will always be able to acquire weapons, whether weapons are legal or not.

It's times like this that I wish we could go back in time and get our Founding Fathers to clarify several different points that modern people mangle and twist and misinterpret. (Separation of church and state, anyone? But, I'm getting off the issue at hand, and I apologize.)
This is just one more example of the government trying to take away our personal freedoms. We cannot keep giving in.

[felaries65.livejournal.com]

My only opposition against this amendment is that guns do not kill. People who pull the triggers DO. And if one cannot use a gun to kill, they will find some other form of weapon.

To me, it is the human being's desire and willingness to kill that is the real danger, not a gun, knife or any other kind of weapon.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

You're right! Perfectly perfectly right. ;-)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

It's times like this that I wish we could go back in time and get our Founding Fathers to clarify several different points that modern people mangle and twist and misinterpret. (Separation of church and state, anyone? But, I'm getting off the issue at hand, and I apologize.)

No need to apologize!! You are exactly right and it's nice to see someone else with a similar mindset. ;-)

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

(*curtsies*) ;-D

Exaaaactly. People are only kidding themselves if they think this will alleviate the problem. It will only make it worse.

I'm glad you edited -- I'm grateful you shared those stories. Thank you!

Well it's like saying we should ban cars, because there are a few people who are negligent and drive them while drunk. Why punish the many for the sins of a few?