The 2nd amendment is the most controversial...

[dailydave21]

Everyone, everywhere has a different opinion on what the it protects... and people get very passionate when defending their stances

This is why I think it's so interesting to see what people think of gun rights. And this is a damn good site worth checking out about this: http://www.thegunpoll.com">TheGunPoll.com. It's a poll about the 2nd amendment and gun rights with some pretty shocking results -- i wouldn't recommend it if i didn't like it so much

Yes, I did post this link before in the Guns Forum.. but I feel it relates to civil liberties too so i'm posting it again here too }(

[MrPerson]

1. The 28th Amendment will be even more controversial.

[tekisui]

3. Yep.

[GOPNotForMe]

2. This is not a scientific poll and I don't know why it's shocking...

Its respondents are overwhelmingly males who own many 4+ guns who haven't known anyone affected by gun violence personally. I would expect them to respond the way they did.

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

4. I agree it is a civil liberties issue.

I support gun rights for the most including assault weapons. I do however think that it should be law that all guns are sold with trigger locks. It should not be mandatory that they are used. (It would kind of defeat the whole defense purpose) But I do think that by at least providing them you would cut down on some of the gun accidents in this country.

[sodom]

5. what is an assualt weapon

it seems to me rational people should not be using this term.
an assault weapon is what?

you take any semi-automatic rifle and slap a barrel shroud and a pistol grip on it and its an assault weapon? does that make sense?

the whole purpose of the second amendment is to defend yourself from an invading army, standing armies and their tyrannical governments. i know, no one wants to talk about it let alone admit it, but thats the truth. the second amendment exists because the people who created this country believed you had the right to overthrow your own government when it turned to tyranny. dont believe me just read the federalist papers or the anti-federalist papers...they both happen to agree on this point. why would you want to limit the peoples means to defend their country? but feel free to disagree with the founding fathers notions of liberty...im just simply stating their position.

there is no legal or rational definition of assault rifle, the term is just simply used as propaganda.

a semi-automatic rifle is a semi-automatic rifle
a fully automatic rifle is a fully automatic rifle

[Unstoppable Madman]

8. gun locks

Every gun sold in America from a dealer comes with a gun lock now. Gun locks, when properly used, can prevent accidents like you said.

[Statistical]

20. I know all handguns are already sold w/ trigger locks not sure about longarms. n/t

[NewMoonTherian]

35. All the long guns I've bought retail have included locks.

And I'm in Oklahoma, so I wouldn't imagine our state laws are more strict than anywhere else(We've got a 2 on the Brady scorecard, trying for a goose egg next year!).

[Interloper]

6. not just guns

I would like to carry a nice knife or sword. What are my rights?

[benEzra]

7. In most states, you can obtain a state license to carry a knife...

though most states allow the carrying of an ordinary pocketknife without a license. In Florida, if you jump through the hoops to obtain a Concealed Weapon license, it covers knives as well as firearms.

Open carry of a sword will depend on state law. Some states allow it, some don't.

[trumanh59639]

9. The 2nd amendment is antiquated

There's no need for guns. PERIOD

[jody]

10. Perhaps but equally antiquated are all pre-existing rights protected by our Constitution

not granted by it nor are they in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Do you agree?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Babykayx]

12. Trumanh obviously doesn't live near wildlife

"There's no need for guns. PERIOD"

Not everyone in this country resides in a city or a suburban community; some of us live in rural areas with dangerous wildlife (bears, bobcats, wolves, etc). And amongst those, some of us don't have quick access to police response (as in over an hour away). Furthermore, certain towns out in the mid west even require their residents to own firearms because there IS NO POLICE, so if you get attacked by a wild animal or are about to be raped or assaulted by another human being, chances are your going to have to defend yourself.

So I totally disagree... sometimes there is a VERY big need for a gun.

[uppityperson]

13. What mid west towns "require" residents to own firearms?

[Babykayx]

14. To name a few

"What mid west towns "require" residents to own firearms?"

Google it for the list, I'll provide a few below.

Kennesaw, Georgia http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Virgin, Utah http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95092&page=1

Geuda Springs, Kansas http://forums.radioreference.com/kansas-radio-discussion-forum/21161-kansas-town-requires-residents-get-gun.html

Greenleaf, Idaho http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-16-idaho-town_x.htm

Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania

Sorry, these 'of note' towns are not all in the mid west, but I'm lazy and don't feel like listing the comprehensive list of those towns in the mid west. Keep an eye out for northern mid western states, as those sparsely populated towns often don't make the news, but many have such laws in place (a few years ago there was a big stink about it when a formerly convicted felon moved to one of these areas and there wasn't a clause to exclude such persons from the local law).

[uppityperson]

16. only one that is "midwest" is Geuda Springs and google shows me no info

the only thing I can find is that forum you linked to. No actual news articles, nothing on their official town news or even wiki.

Neither Georgia, Utah, Pennsylvania nor Idaho are "mid west".

Greenleaf, ID, per your link shows this:"Ordinance 208, passed by the City Council on Tuesday, asks Greenleaf's residents who do not object on religious or other grounds to keep a gun in the home." Not a requirement.

Virgin, UT, per your link "Virgin residents who don’t comply will not be punished, the mayor said. Also, exceptions will be made for the mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and people who cannot afford to own a gun. "

And no, I won't google more. If a poster states something, THEY are responsible for proving it, otherwise it is just words from an anonymous person on a forum. ie meaningless

[Babykayx]

17. 4th link down when you google

Geuda Springs is the USA Today artical here... http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-11-23-kansas-guns_x.htm

I guess I need to reiterate that these are not all in the mid west. When I used the term mid-west I was using it as a description (of a rural area) not a location (which is what the technical definition is), my bad.

Maybe your right about Greenleaf; I don't have the inclination to look it up again, but if they put 'other grounds' in as an optional opt out then it's a loophole large enough to make legislating it pointless.

And I'm sorry, I thought you were genuinely curious not argumentative, that's why I recommended Google; had I thought you were debating and not questioning, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to place the responsibility of fact checking me on your plate.

[uppityperson]

18. "requiring most households to have guns and ammunition."

Thank you for the link. Again, it is the responsibility of someone making a point to prove that point, otherwise it is just words.

From the link:

Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.
(clip)Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.
(clip)
Geuda Springs has no local police force; the Sumner County Sheriff's department is responsible for policing the area. Sheriff Gerald Gilkey said the ordinance makes him concerned for the safety of his officers.

"This throws up red flags," he said.

The town's city attorney, Thomas Herlocker, also opposes the measure, which has not taken effect because it has yet to be published. He said he plans to ask the council to reverse itself on the issue. The council meets next on Dec. 1.

So, if you don't want a gun, you don't have to. But if it is ok with you, you are required to have at least one? The Sheriff isn't happy with it and the town's attorney oppose it, and it hasn't taken effect yet (from article dated 2003)?

Have you a recent article or news that this actually took effect?

[fedupinhouston]

15. No need at all?

One of the great things about living in the United States, is I do not need to justify my exercise of my rights based upon someone else's idea of "need".

If you do not believe they are needed any longer, perhaps you could explain this to our military and law enforcement agencies. Perhaps they can set an example by disarming themselves first. After all, as they are our employees, i would be far more comfortable if they were disarmed before the people were.

Then, maybe, you can start working on having the 2nd Amendment repealed. Good luck with that though - i predict that will face more opposition than the health care bill, and will very likely result in you having your head handed to you - literally, not figuratively.

[gorfle]

22. The need for guns.

The 2nd amendment is antiquated. There's no need for guns. PERIOD

I have an honest question for you.

The founders intended for there to be a decentralized military system, made up of citizen militias, because they distrusted a central government with a strong centralized military force that it could use to oppress its people.

Do you believe that that fear is no longer justified?

Do you believe that we have reached the pinnacle of civilized representative government and that our government will forevermore be beholden to the will of the governed?

[PavePusher]

23. You don't actually believe in the existance of criminals, do you?

I guess they're as mythical as the Tooth Fairy and Sant Claus.

[paulsby]

33. ah, the need canard

didn't take long

[Yavapai]

37. The 1st amendment is antiquated

There's no need for free speech. PERIOD

The 5th amendment is antiquated

You don't need protection from illegal search and seizure, if you are not hiding anything

etc, etc, etc......

This was a reply to post #9, that stated "the second amendment is antiquated, There's no need for guns. PERIOD ".

Must have hit the wrong button :-(

[livetoride]

39. There is no need..

..in your opinion. There is no requirement for "need" in the 2nd Amendment. Further the joy of the constitution is that it protects our rights against those that would take them away. People like you, people that feel that if a "right" does not appeal (or apply) to them personally it should not exist.

-Peter

[Hollywood Trucker]

40. I disagree

By outlawing guns all you are doing is taking guns away from lawabiding citizens who would then have no defense against the criminals with the guns.

[DissedByBush]

46. Bush thought some other rights were antiquated, too

So is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican which rights they think are antiquated?

That's pretty sad.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Carl Skan]

21. Only because so few people actually understand that how the 14th ammendment protects abortion rights

[Jkid]

24. The original intent of the second admendment.

The second amendment's purpose at the time it was there is to allow firearms possession, which at the time less powerful than the modern firearms at the time, to allow a citizen militia. The purpose of that militia is to defend the states and overthrow the federal government in case it turned tryrannical, which we now known as totalitarianism.

Today many Americans live in metropolitan and suburban areas. The militia as mentioned in the US Constitution, is now known as the National Guard, which has a different purpose than the citizen militias of centuries ago. Police services are within minutes away in many areas so gun possession is unnecessary. There are a need for firearms for pest control, hunting, and defense against wild animals in rural area that can be sufficiently can be dealt with single-shot hunting rifles and shotguns, and sport shooting with target rifles and handguns. In rural areas where police/sheriff response can take an hour , then there would be need for firearms in that area, and then only a handgun if sufficient.

Bear in mind that the second amendment was actually based on the right to firearms in the UK in the English Bill of Rights, but the UK ,throughout the years, slowly regulated firearms in such a way that unless you are a animal hunter, in sport, or in the army you are not allowed a firearm at all. Even then guns would simply be smuggled in from outside the UK, but gun crime is a lot lower than in the US. Even the British police services don't carry firearms routinely except for the armed response units. Probably the US can easily model the UK's fine tradition of unarmed officers in urban and suburban areas of our country in the future.

In short, unless you live in a rural area, or a hunter, in pest control, or an athlete, or in the army or a police officer, you should not need a firearm. The US states or even the federal government could do well to implement reasonable regulations of firearms.

[X_Digger]

25. Unnecessary??

"Police services are within minutes away in many areas so gun possession is unnecessary."

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Police 1) have a duty to protect an individual when they call 911, and 2) are within range when 911 is called.

1) DeShaney v. Winnebago County - "The court opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the Due Process Clause protects against state action only, and as it was Randy DeShaney who abused Joshua, a state actor (the Winnebago County Department of Social Services) was not responsible.

Furthermore, they ruled that the DSS could not be found liable, as a matter of constitutional law, for failure to protect Joshua DeShaney from a private actor. Although there exist conditions in which the state (or a subsidiary agency, like a county department of social services) is obligated to provide protection against private actors, and failure to do so is a violation of 14th Amendment rights, the court reasoned "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means." <5>. Since Joshua DeShaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm. In reaching this conclusion, the court opinion relied heavily on its precedents in Estelle v. Gamble and Youngberg v. Romeo."

Castle Rock v. Gonzales - "The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law (thus making this a technically narrow ruling); were a mandate for enforcement to exist (making Scalia's statements afterward technically obiter dicta), it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.


2) NYC - "The average amount of time it took a police officer to respond to a 911 call reporting a crime in progress was 10.3 minutes"
Vancouver - "The city-wide average response-time reduction -- from nine minutes and eight seconds to eight minutes, 53 seconds over the last quarter -- is detailed in a report to be presented to the Vancouver Police Board on Wednesday."
Minneapolis - 8:33 in 2008, 9:44 in 2007..
San Francisco - "From July 2002 through June 2003, the San Francisco Police Department reports that it responded to such calls in an average of 7.8 minutes, down from 9.7 over the same period the previous year"
Dallas - "Responding to those calls takes an average of more than 10 minutes at the southeast patrol station, which covers Pleasant Grove, South Dallas and parts of Oak Cliff. " (citywide is ~8 minutes)

Now, tell me what I should do during the 7-10 minutes after I call 911 while being robbed / raped / assaulted / carjacked when the police have no obligation to do more than come take pictures of my corpse?

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no duty to protect us, it's an untenable position to claim that firearms aren't 'necessary'. The only way that would work is if by depriving me of my rights, a 'special relationship' is created (basically, the police only have to protect you when you are in custody or some other 'special relationship' has been established.) We would have to hire 100x as many cops to protect each and every citizen, or face huge liability (sovereign immunity notwithstanding.)

By depriving citizens of a means to protect themselves, their families, and their belongings, while at the same time denying responsibility for their protection, the government is denying our substantive due process right to life and liberty under the 14th.

eta: I'm glad we don't have a "Department of Need" that decides which rights guaranteed in our constitution are really valid.

[JoeyT]

29. It's true guns were less powerful then.

Of course the first amendment was also put into place long before the internet, when the power of free speech and association was much less powerful. Plus the guns then weren't exactly anything to sneeze at. Best I can find some of those guns were capable of firing a .70 cal at 700-1000 fps. For comparison, a modern .22 cal long rifle runs about 1200ish fps. The .22 is a far smaller bullet, which gives the .70 cal far greater power.

"There are a need for firearms for pest control, hunting, and defense against wild animals in rural area that can be sufficiently can be dealt with single-shot hunting rifles and shotguns"
Ever tried to kill a wild boar? (Yes, they attack people) I wouldn't want to bet my life on hitting it or doing enough damage to kill it with the first shot.

"then there would be need for firearms in that area, and then only a handgun if sufficient."
Handguns aren't the best weapon for home defense. If you're trying to defend your home, you want a shotgun.
Something that isn't really capable of punching through multiple walls, but will still cause enough damage to put someone down...and is far easier to hit with while panicked in the dark.
Handguns are more useful for self defense outside the home.

"Even then guns would simply be smuggled in from outside the UK, but gun crime is a lot lower than in the US."
Of course both countries have vastly different cultures and ideals. Their rate of all crimes is lower than ours.

[NoNothing]

38. Minor point but interesting

Of course both countries have vastly different cultures and ideals. Their rate of all crimes is lower than ours.

Actually this is no longer the case. I believe OP is correct that gun crimes are lower, but overall rates of both violent and nonviolent crime in almost all categories excepting homicide are significantly higher in the UK.

You can play with the stats here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

[Xenotime]

30. We could even just accept International law and we would be better off.

[paulsby]

34. no, we wouldn't

we stand practically alone in our 1st and 2nd amendments.

most other countries have nowhere near the speech freedoms we have, or the freedom to keep and bear arms.

[Goldstein1984]

36. Firearms are just tools

The right to keep and bare arms shall not be abridged. The people who wrote those words had just used firearms to overthrow their government and create a new one. I think the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve that capability.

With our government under the control of an economic elite, engaged in unconstitutional imprisonment, torture and sneak-and-peak searches, I can't think of a better time to keep and bare arms.

[DissedByBush]

47. "you should not need"

I didn't know the exercise of rights was based on need. Shouldn't you be able to exercise a right at will, without explanation?

But maybe I do agree to a "back-then" based regulation.

The people can't have a firearm of higher caliber than normally used during the time of the Revolutionary War.

I'll go for that. :)

[PavePusher]

48. Me too!

And since cannons were in private ownership, and repeating weapons were in rapid development...

Or conversely, we should require registration and permitting for exercise of all our other Rights as well. I wonder how many people here would be comfortable with being required to be licenced or 'registered' to exercise their First or Fourth Amendment Rights? Or Thirteenth...

[stopchildabuse]

26. the amendment was written long ago

It was written when people needed guns to hunt, etc. Now guns are used to kill people in crime and so on.

[X_Digger]

27. "hunt" does not appear in the second amendment.

Two or three state constitutions did mention hunting, but more of them protect an _explicit_ individual right for self-defense-

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.<15> It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791.<32> Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.<55> Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."<56>

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."<89>

[eqfan592]

28. Couldn't be more off the mark even if you tried.

It was written so that the people would maintain an ability to keep the government in check. And even if that weren't the case, even the conservative end of statistical evidence shows they are used more often in defense than in the commission of a crime. And besides, unless you want to try and argue that guns inherently turn people into criminals, then getting rid of them won't take care of the crime problem at all. The criminals will just start using something else (and this isn't even mentioning the lucrative, black market gun trade you would be creating).

I'm sorry, but you and Jkid fail in every respect when it comes to the second amendment. I suggest you do some real research on this issue.

[PavePusher]

32. There wasn't any crime 230 years ago?

Really?

Whodathunkit.

You are... MASSIVE FACEPALM.

[scheuvrontk]

42. The second ammendment was not for hunting

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.

Please explain to me why you are making a statement about hunting when clearly you are wrong. Since when were militias used only to hunt? Guns orginally created as a battlefield weapon, not for hunting, guns have always been used to kill people.

[DissedByBush]

49. "Now guns are used to kill people in crime and so on"

Hate to tell you this, but people used guns to kill people and commit crimes in the 1700s too.

Obviously the Founders knew this, yet there's the Second Amendment.

The main reason for the Second Amendment is a distrust of power in the government.

The British government had tried to take their guns in order to quash the upcoming rebellion.

They didn't want a government to be able to take the guns of the people again.

When the people are well-armed, the government is subservient to the people.

When the people are disarmed, the people are subservient to the government.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VoteForCantwell]

41. Who cares about a poll?

What is the point of a RIGHT if the majority can vote to take it away?

The role of government is to protect our rights, including our right to defend ourselves against all aggressors.

[BlueInMass]

43. Guns and laws

Most gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained or unregistered wepons. Gun laws won't stop that.

Let's not pass any more gun laws until our court rooms enforce the laws already in place. How many people get caught with unregistered wepons and not prosecuted? Happens all the time.

[PavePusher]

45. "Unregistered wepons"?

What is this "registration" you speak of? Most states don't require it, or even have provisions for it. And rightfully so.

Please, show me your book/magazine/newspaper "registraions", or your 4th and 5th Amendment "registration"...

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.