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

[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.