Reason for Right to Bear Arms

[Clementine]

Okay, suppose no guns were allowed, except for the police and, of course, the criminals.

You wake up one night because you hear someone breaking into your house. Could be a rapist, serial killer or a burglar. You grab your cell phone and dial 911 as you hide. All you want is for the good guys with guns to get there fast. Your life depends on police getting there within a few minutes, even though they are miles away when they get the call.

Some people think those who own guns are some sort of fanatics. I think some people just realize that police response time to a call for help isn't always quick enough. There are some dangerous people roaming our streets. They have guns and always will. I want to keep guns in the hands of good guys, but laws don't make that happen.

 

[jwoodie]

Because they knew NaziCons with short dicks were fearful and paranoid and would need an arsenal to feel safe...?

Hmm, you seem to speak from personal experience. What is your preferred length?

 

[JakeStarkey]

CG and Clementine, lissen up. jwoodie, you are barely sentient so ask someone to tell you.

No one is going to ban guns, no one. Heller is very clear about that. Heller is also very clear that regulation is vested in the legislatures.

This is not hard to understand.

 

[ERGO]

Numerous school massacres stopped by gun owners who wielded their weapons in defense of children

In the midst of all the anti-gun hysteria following the senseless murder of 26 people - 20 of them first graders - at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., one story that is repeatedly overlooked is how often a firearm has been used to save lives and stop senseless murders.

We here at Natural News believe the mainstream media, which so often overlooks these kinds of stories because they don't fit into the statist government world-view held by the majority of news editors, has done a disservice to the public by ignoring these acts of selflessness and heroism.

With that in mind, we bring just some of the most recent high-profile incidents - including what could have been additional school massacres - that were stopped by law-abiding citizens using their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves and others. Scores of individual uses that never get reported are not included here:

To read the cases-source link:Numerous school massacres stopped by gun owners who wielded their weapons in defense of children

"Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead," columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo.

"We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year," adds Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. "We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."

NRA-ILA | The Chronicle, Muskegon, MI, 8/23/95

GUN WATCH: Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens

Jeanne Assam and the New Life Church Shooting | BLUtube

7NEWS - 6 Shot At New Life Church; Gunman, 2 Churchgoers Dead - News Story

Larry Elder: How often are guns used in self-defense?

How often are guns used in self-defense? | gun, guns, ice - Opinion - The Orange County Register

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The Founding Fathers clearly thought of women as second class citizens, if not outright property. Our society, to its credit, has evolved from that state of ignorance. Though not to the point of total equality. Women are still banned from certain military pursuits. But none of that has any bearing on your argument. The 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms but it does not limit that right to any particular sex.

If you are claiming the 2nd amendment does not apply to women, then - by your argument - they have no right to keep and bear arms at all. I disagree with your position, as do the courts. But, as I said, in this country you are free to believe as you like. Isn't freedom grand?

Wrong again.

It clearly states why the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED.


I mean, read the fucking thing.

Which is why the courts have held that an outright general ban is unconstitutional. However, the courts have never held that regulating gun ownership or use constitutes an infringement of that right. In fact, the courts have consistently held that it is the proper role of the state to do precisely that and to even institute an outright ban for certain members of the "people". Your beliefs to the contrary, while very nice for you, are irrelevant.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008 -- Decided June 26, 2008
​

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D.C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
​

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
​

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.
​

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
​

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
​

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illiniois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
​

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition -- in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute -- would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Scalis, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Gunsburg, JJ., joined.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1 (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illiniois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.

The court empowers legislatures the right to limit certain types of weapons, period.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Who told you this?

I believe the Constitution told her that. Show where it says you can possess any weapon you please.

The Constitution showed her no such thing. And, show where is says you CAN'T possess any weapon you please. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, NOT the right of the people to keep and bear guns, or the right of the people to keep and bear knives, or the right of the people to keep and bear baseball bats, or the right of the people to keep and bear slingshots. I suspect you think it means one has a right to wear short-sleeved shirts, or no shirt at all, in order that one's arms might be bared...perhaps?

 

[JakeStarkey]

CrotchetyGeezer, Heller makes it clear that you are wrong.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Who told you this?

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

Or that they had any idea of what would become available.

More important is that they had no idea people would use it as an excuse to arm criminals, the mentally ill and child killers.

To the gun nuts - where, in the Constitution, are you guaranteed the right to own 30-round clips and assault rifles. WHERE, in the Constitution, are you given the right to take away these rights:

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

Would you argue that those 27 people lost those rights to that shooter?

Read the Second Amendment...clown.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heller 1 (F) contradicts you, CG. Now read it and stop embarassing yourself.

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

Or that they had any idea of what would become available.

More important is that they had no idea people would use it as an excuse to arm criminals, the mentally ill and child killers.

To the gun nuts - where, in the Constitution, are you guaranteed the right to own 30-round clips and assault rifles. WHERE, in the Constitution, are you given the right to take away these rights:

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

Would you argue that those 27 people lost those rights to that shooter?

Read the Second Amendment...clown.

 

[bripat9643]

CrotchetyGeezer, Heller makes it clear that you are wrong.

You'll excuse us if we don't accept you as expert on interpreting supreme court cases.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Who told you this?

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

Or that they had any idea of what would become available.

More important is that they had no idea people would use it as an excuse to arm criminals, the mentally ill and child killers.

To the gun nuts - where, in the Constitution, are you guaranteed the right to own 30-round clips and assault rifles. WHERE, in the Constitution, are you given the right to take away these rights:

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

Would you argue that those 27 people lost those rights to that shooter?

And, had someone else shot the shooter, that shooter would have lost his right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness to someone exercising their Second Amendment rights. Would you have had a problem with that? And, that you say "those 27 people lost those rights to that shooter"? Yes, they lost them to the "shooter", not a gun. Had it not been for the "shooter", that gun would have been an inanimate object, just sitting there looking like a gun and doing absolutely nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then read it. I have posted the relevant portion several times. And, guys, I am far more relevant to what constitutional law and theory says than any of you on the far right. You see: I stay within reality.

 

[bripat9643]

The intent of arming citizens as retaining the ability to fight tyranny was that citizens should be able to have whatever weapons the government had.

And of course, that was back in the days of single-shot muskets.

Forget it, no matter how much you beg and plead, you are not going to get nuclear or biological weapons restrictions lifted. You are not going to make it legal to carry hand grenades.

The American people are now demanding government further restricts military style weapons.

You know, I spent part of my childhood with my Uncle Bill and Aunt Sandy after my mother died.

During that time, I didn't know what store bought meat was, because we all hunted, raised chickens and slaughtered a cow every year.

Bill had probably 40 guns in his house, either hanging in racks on the walls, or put away in drawers or other places.

NONE of them were assault rifles, all were bolt action. Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle to hunt or defend your home with?

The quick answer is, you don't.

Charming story, but how does it prove we don't need semi-automatic weapons?

 

[freedombecki]

Be very thankful your side does not have you arguing for it before courts.

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Where did they specify that? They had cannons in those days right? Did it state they "had the right to bear arms, except for cannons"? Did they state that they had to approve of the "arms"?

We have a better speaker than you know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I like Boehner. He will make some limitations on the gun law but not as many as his caucus would like.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

That this is the mindset you hold? This only goes to demonstrate you'd be amongst the very first ones sucking the toes of those who would desire to assume a dictatorship. Hitler would have loved a good little boot licker like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CG is barely sentient.

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

That this is the mindset you hold? This only goes to demonstrate you'd be amongst the very first ones sucking the toes of those who would desire to assume a dictatorship. Hitler would have loved a good little boot licker like you.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

And we wonder why you continue to assume that the military would back the government instead of the people.

And one could also wonder why this individual would presume that allowing one to possess a firearm to protect one's self from a repressive government wouldn't go towards allowing them to obtain more significant weapons to protect one's self from a repressive government. Apparently this individual has no clue as to the tactics which would be employed should such an eventuality ever transpire. If such a scenario were to ever come to fruition, the goal wouldn't be merely to protect one's self with a gun from the repressive government. The goal would be to use the gun to obtain more significant hardware, to protect one's self from the repressive government. If I use my gun to shoot a tank's crew, for instance, I'm not going to run off with my gun and and rely solely on my gun for my defense. I'm going to steal the tank. Duh!

Obviously, this individual hasn't a clue as to what's been going on in Syria, with gun-toting Syrian rebels obtaining heavier weapons with the use of their guns.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The intent of arming citizens as retaining the ability to fight tyranny was that citizens should be able to have whatever weapons the government had.

And of course, that was back in the days of single-shot muskets.

Forget it, no matter how much you beg and plead, you are not going to get nuclear or biological weapons restrictions lifted. You are not going to make it legal to carry hand grenades.

The American people are now demanding government further restricts military style weapons.

Military style weapons? What's "military style weapons"? Oh...wait, you don't know those in the military carry regular pistols, knives and other similar weapons? I have an old bayonet which came from my dad's Army gun he used in World War II. Is that a "military style weapon"?