Comments on: Right To Bear Arms, What Went On In Supreme Court Today

By: Jeremy Crossman

Jeremy Crossman — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:19:58 +0000

This is my first post on any web site, anytime, anywhere, on any subject. If SC rules incorrectly it doesn’t matter. The Imperial Federal Government of the States of America will never take my or my families guns period. They will have to shoot me and my whole family first.

Jeremy Crossman
San Mateo, California

By: Spencer

Spencer — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:48:48 +0000

this shouldnt even be up for debate.

it is the people’s right to bear arms. having the ability to choose to buy a firearm is what America is about. the ability for an individual to choose.

and yes of course certain people should not be able to buy a firearm. like retards, criminals, and other people who have questionable backrounds.

lets say you have two children. one child is good, and the other is bad. Would you punish the good child for what the bad child did?

there isnt a single good reason to take firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Also, as much as i appreciate the police, its not always easy to get to a phone and then wait 10-15 minutes while your house is being robbed.

By: Howie

Howie — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:00:51 +0000

We the People!

That is all that needs to be said!!

By: Arthuraria

Arthuraria — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:16:23 +0000

Read the Federalist papers No. 84 written by Alexander Hamilton. The U.S. Constitution has no authority to ban firearms, and the Bill of Rights is merely a redundant expression of rights implied by not giving such authority to the federal government. Even if the SC rules that the second amendment applies to militias only, the right to bear arms is not guaranteed only by the second amendment. The right to bear arms is an implied universal right because such control was not given to the U.S. government in the Constitution. Every authority the founders wanted the federal government to have is in the Constitution. Any authority not written in that document belongs to the people over which the federal government shall have no such control in that given matter.

By: David Ross

David Ross — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:15:42 +0000

Agreed, what Mr. Heston said!

By: Mike Mose

Mike Mose — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:44:03 +0000

You and your family will have 200 million supporters with 180 million guns as alleys. We could actually clean out govt. LOLLOL

By: jak

jak — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:14:04 +0000

Individuals are the militia. There’s nothing to debate. Just read the text.
There could only be a debate about the Second ammendmant if one wanted to repeal it and/or was inclined to argue about what the meaning of “is” is.
Sigh…

By: jak

jak — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:47 +0000

Arthuraria is spot on,
The right to self defense is not a right granted by the government. The right to self defense is an inailienable, God given right which shall not be infringed.