The 2nd Amendment is about basic freedom

I completely agree except that if you read the entire amendment which for some reason is impossible to find on line,( but is readily available at any public library in several different texts), you will see clearly that the "well regulated militia" does not include any gov. run body but is exclusively made up of we the people in order to protect us from a potentially corrupt government and from acts of crime which infringe upon our rights as stated by the constitution. In addition to that extremely long sentence(sorry 'bout that). No, it is not the place for our gov. to enforce the constitution rather, to uphold it.
It is OUR right and duty to protect our rights therein.( thanks at least in part to the 2nd amendment) The constitution is the middle ground or mediator if you will between a potentially corrupt gov. or criminals who infringe on our rights and we the people. Also, I agree, gun owners should be expected to respect the safety of neighbors and the rest of us with responsibility and proper training (which is available at any professional range and usually conducted by trained police and/or ex-military officers). I also feel that any infringement of this responsibility should be punished. In my state it is,( training is not required however, I feel it should be) the punishment is the loss of the right to legally obtain a firearm within the state for life and I as a father myself, completely support and agree with it. Also they do an extensive background check conducted by the state police which you also must pass and does include a history of any emotional or mental problems and past drug abuse in order to obtain the right to legally purchase any fire arm. It is also included that any fire arm that is not being carried(by a person with a permit to do so) must be kept locked and unloaded when not in use, another thing I support. The right to own which weapons is a whole different matter. I believe that if I choose to own weapons legally, as stated in the constitution, in order to protect myself and my fellow man from a potentially corrupt gov. or acts of crime then, I should by all means be allowed to choose to own weapons that are designed to effectively stop a human or many human enemies of the people and not be limited to rifles that are meant for hunting animals which usually only fire one shot at a time. The weapon should at least be semi-automatic and of a caliber large enough to do the job. The gov. would be attacking with full auto machine guns that can spray in excess of 100 rounds per minute, and much more severe equipment than that, there will be no time to cock your weapon between shots. Furthermore, anyone speaking of whether we would stand a chance against our modern armed forces or not is not speaking to the point. We do and should continue to have the right to a fighting chance. Also, don't forget that the same people who make up the FBI, ATF, and our police and armed forces are also free citizens that probably don't want to be run over or have there loved ones run over by a gov. run amuck. They too will have to choose a side should it come to that. The gov. will have a hard time dropping bombs without pilots to fly the planes. If our forefathers wouldn't have fought for this right (against our very own gov.) , it would be impossible for us to have any of the rights we have today and be where we are. Time is not over and we still have a future to protect and a responsibility to do so. As American citizens it is our duty to the ideals that founded this country and gave us our freedom from the corrupt and out of control gov. from which we came.(in response to Tommygun264)

By all means, I believe in "A well REGULATED militia". Most of the people crowing about taking their guns from their "cold, dead hands", are against all forms of regulation and have nothing to do with being part of a militia, which refers to your local National Guard. Requiring individuals who own guns to know how to safely use, maintain and store their firearms and restricting the types and amounts of weapons and ammunition to those appropriate for the area and their stated use is not contrary to the 2nd Amendment, but in keeping with what the founding fathers have in mind. I don't consider myself being sheep-like because I don't want a person with a history of mental illness to be permitted to acquire assault rifles, machine guns and armor piercing ammunition, or for some deluded neighbor to store their ammunition and other explosive materials in the closet next to their water heater in the same building where I live, or for my niece to go play at a friends house where mommy or daddy keep a loaded gun in the bedside table. Some people either refuse or are incapable of conducting themselves in a responsible manner - that is why the term "WELL REGULATED" is in the 2nd Amendment. So tell me, if our government was founded upon and governed by the Constitution, isn't it their duty to uphold and enforce the Constitution?

WOW, are you just going to stand there if the government does turn on us. the amendment was put in the constitution because OUR government was trying to disarm our people and we fought back. if they send a bomber to my house.....no genius I will not be able to fight them off the amendment CLEARLY states "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."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution....Read the important word malitia as in group assembled to protect our rights ....made up of us. you cannot deny the violence brought upon and endured by our forefathers in order to ensure our future...they were defending themselves and us from the government.....proof that it can be done if we take responsibility for our own future as a people not person and stop being sheep. you my friend are willingly letting the people of your own nation down by lying down your right to defend us. our government IS corrupt. if you donot realize that you truly are blind. good day. (in response to stardate)

it seems that everyone is discussing how one person and there gun can't stand a chance against a government, i believe to some extent that is correct.

I must agree with a response posted earlier. One person against the government.... not likely.
Now if you gather up in arms together as a free country you have a much greater chance.

I think that the strongest point made so far was that in order for the government to "Take Over" they would have to take control of that very same military that is not only the largest and strongest in the world but comprised of FREE American citizens that are out there fighting for our right to to even discuss this topic without fear of repercussion from the government.

That my friends is impossible!

As a prior Military Solider I do not see how our troops would turn on us no matter what the state of the nation is. They are out there fighting for us.

Take this discussion and gear it toward what can be done about the the statistic that was stated earlier. For every 1 handgun legally purchased 500 are being put into the hands of criminals.

Solve THAT! problem and there will no longer be discussions of gun control.

You have a gun, the government is out of controll and after you, you get swarmed by a swat team, you pull out your gun.

What did the gun do?

A person who is against the Second Amendment, in my opinion is a kind of person who is for a liberty less utopia that has soft pads around every corner and where everyone rides bicycles, just like in The Giver. No guns or even any item possible of being a weapon. No liberties.

Not allowing people to have guns is one step towards a liberty less utopia.

Get yourself a metal bat and forget about guns. No one is going to take that bat away from you and shoot you with it.

This from the man who compares WMD to "Easter eggs". The 2nd Amendment refers to a militia composed of the United States citizenry, which the founding fathers wanted to defend our country in place of a standing army. At the time it was drafted, our founding fathers were opposed to maintaining a standing army during peace time - that is why to this very day, the United States Congress must vote on whether or not the U.S. military should continue to exist. Perhaps if you had studied history Governor Huckabee, you would understand this vital fact which the NRA has so successfully kept out of the public debate.

P.S. - Jordan has always been our ally and didn't support Saddam, so the idea that he would send his "Easter egg" WMD to Jordan makes about as much sense as him sending them to Israel. Even if he did, don't you think the transfer of such massive amounts of weaponry, including radioactive materials which could be detected from orbit, would have been noticed by our Air Force and Navy who were enforcing the no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq, or by one of the many satellites which were trained on every inch of Iraq 24/7?

I believe the election is fixed...I think that voteing is just an illusion 2 make us think we still have FREE choice...They control the media...they choose who they put scandels and all that crap up 2 sway the minds 2 think they picked the president...when really they do it...it's all about who will make the most money...that's all the government cares about...and deep down we all know it...it's just so hard 2 believe ppl can be that heartless...but w/ power comes corruption...WE ALL KNOW THIS...so START THINKING instead of FOLLOWING....please 4 your own life and the lives of those u care about....don't think 4 a second the government doesn't look at all of you as expendable....you should know they care only about themselves and those that they know...do they know u?...I know they don't know me....so why would they care about me???...Just at least think about what I've said...reread it so u get my point completely...I say this 'cause I NEED the choice 2 LIVE free...not pay 4 it....this is why I research all points of veiw not just my own...ALL!!!!!!!
If I don't understand what I'm disproveing then how can I disprove it???...That is why I look at ALL aspects/perspectives POSSIBLE...*Pure TRUTH*True PEACE*Total LOVE*

The USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, Presidential Directive 51, the Violent Radicalization (Thought Crime) Bill, are all the examples you have been so willing over the last seven years to overlook. Habeas corpus has been abolished. You can now be kidnapped without cause by the feds, and kept in prison without accusation, without charge, without bail, and without end. And they can torture you while you're there.

The FDA makes it their business to shove out of the market many health products simply on the basis that Big Pharma lobbies against them. Or the reverse -- that the FDA approves dangerous drugs (we've heard all about them on the news) for political reasons. Where the government controls, the natural and otherwise strong market incentives to help people and serve the public disappear, and the industry becomes guided by politics instead of the people. The EPA is equally politicized.

Maybe I could post, one at a time, all the videos I've seen just in 2007 of police officers using those hand-held torture devices (called Tasers) on unarmed, defenseless Americans who happened to commit the heinous act of not obeying *fast enough*. These cops will taser unarmed men, handcuffed women, teenage girls, and never bat an eye. America is developing a thug caste in too many police departments, and they're being taught "pain compliance," a.k.a. TORTURE.

Maybe I could try to explain how the monetary policy is annihilating the poor and middle class economically. This topic goes over most people's heads even though it affects all of us personally all the time. All I can say in the span of this post is to recommend going to http://www.mises.org and read until you discover a clue. Long story short, they print money out of nothing for the profit of Wall Street and government spending, and you and I are stuck with the negative economic effects such as price inflation. In terms of gold the price of oil has been quite stable. The price of energy is going up because our federal government, through unconstitutional actions and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, prints so much money the dollar loses its worth.

There hasn't been a single time in history where a government used torture on foreigners, and didn't turn the same practices on its own people. The fact that our CIA tortures people should bother you a great deal. I'm trying to make a racket about this kind of thing BEFORE it comes home to roost and really *does* ruin your life.

Repeated election fraud has been unearthed from the 2000 and 2004 elections, and possibly now even the recent New Hampshire Primary.

But then, David Letterman is still on every night so maybe everything is still OK, yeah?

Zzzzz

(P.S.: As for constitutional powers, the interpretation of the Constitution is not hard. It is a list of jobs. If you want them to do more, add it in an amendment. It's constitutional to amend the constitution.)

I'm done with this thread.

Again we keep hearing how our "evil" government is "ruining the lives of people!" -- and yet there are almost no examples. Are the cops that patrol the streets and locking up muggers an example of "an out of control government runing your life?" Well, surely if not the cops then the firefighters (NOT mentioned or sanctioned by the Constituion! gasp!) pulling people out of burning cars or running into the WTC on 9/11 are examples of our out of control government? No? The states-righters keep insisting that government is creating insitutions that aren't specifically in the Constitution (like cops, firefighters, the FDA, the EPA, etc) and then claiming these "unconstitutional" creations are "ruining" their lives -- but we never hear exactly how. But staying on topic with the 2nd amendment -- handguns (much like shoulder fired rocket launchers and tanks) serve little to no purpose except to empower the criminal element. By banning the manufacture and import of handguns into the US we'll make the availability of handguns (not to mention ammunition for handguns) much more difficult to find and more expensive. Will we ever be able to keep handguns 100 percent out of the criminal element? Doubtful. But if we can make it too difficult and too expensive for 75 percent of the low level thugs (with no cash and connections) to get them we can seriously curb crimes of opportunity (muggings, drive-bys, hold-ups). Again, handguns can easily be replaced with tasers or mace for self-defense and people will still be able to buy as many shotguns and rifles as they want. Handguns empower criminals much much more than then protect citizens.

crob80227,

You appear to be making the assumption that obedience to the constitution means a return to the stone age. And for that you have my pity.

If the federal government hadn't shown itself to be completely at odds with our personal liberty, maybe I would be more merciful with them. But you need to wake up. With fresh scars on your back, you remain convinced daddy won't beat you. The feds are chained down by the constitution because the founders knew something that we are today experiencing: unchecked federal power hurts EVERYONE.

The constitution is very specific about what form the federal government is to take. It does not take a gang of Supreme Court Justices and a legion of lawyers to figure this out. The Constitution is a list of jobs, and those are the only jobs the feds are contracted to do.

For those who want greater federal power, the burden of proof is on THEM to prove the feds have any jurisdiction to exercise it. Even the federalists who wanted to create the government in Washington (Philadelphia at the time) understood this.

We small-government types already have our case made for us in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers.

As for bans on handguns, just because you can't think of a function doesn't mean there isn't one. Handguns are great for turning off television sets. But if we're going to argue based on use or function, perhaps we need to repeal Amendments four through ten, because obviously you have no interest in capitalizing on them.

Or kind of like conservatives and flag burning?

"Most Americans are so good at being afraid of all the wrong things."
^^^Kind of like liberals and global warming?

Angelique: You're logic makes no sense whatsoever. You won't vote right now because you don't like the way things are being run, but you will vote when things are going you're way? Shouldn't it be the other way around or shouldn't you just vote all the time?!

People who give up voting are what corrupt governments love. I think that's why we have the war in Iraq... people just don't seem to care what the government does. No one is willing to speak up and do anything. Voting is a great way to show we're a free nation.

Basic sense of FREEDOM?!?! A political figure who doesn't know the TRUE MEANING OF FREEDOM!!! Until this country lives by the true meaning of the word FREE I think all political people are bad people 'cause they 4get what FREE really means...& try 2 dictate what we do....HOW IS THAT FREE???? Until we live by PURE TRUTH(that means no secrets)TRUE PEACE(no war)& TOTAL LOVE(understanding even what we don't agree w/...& respecting w/e it may be)...I say WHY VOTE??? 'cause I'm not really free...voteing is just a wolf in sheeps clothing 2 me...a way 2 make us think we have a say....I'm sick of this FALSE ADVERTISEING COUNTRY....When we really are the land of the free then I'll vote...'cause then all of us will truely matter...until then....I hope 4 all the world 2 share *Pure TRUTH*True PEACE*Total LOVE*

We need to recognize the limitations of men who wrote the Constitution 200 YEARS AGO! They wrote a living document meant to change with the times. They did not write it on stone tablets. The AMish might live exactly as we did in 1776, but the rest of us have evolved with the demands of the future. This obsession with States rights doesn't "empower" anyone. What you'd end up with is a dysfunctional patchwork of states with contradicting laws and wildly varying levels of living conditions. It would be a horrible German Confederacy crippled by its own petty infighting. But, thank God, the super majority LOVES the current FEDERAL system and the states-righters are in the extreme minority. America is a super power specifically because we are united under a federal system and haven't let ourselves get dragged down by 50 individual fiefdoms all fighting amongst themselves over every little issue. Thank god we live in a country where the the rights of citizens in Alabama are the same as they are in Michigan. My goodness! How would we have been able to fight World War II if we had no standing army and 50 different states are with the ability to "opt out" of the war OR actually SIDE WITH HITLER if they wanted too? God bless the system we have now (even thought Bush is abusing it). Oh, and just to keep on topic: banning handguns is not banning ALL guns and therefore not a violation of the 2ns Amendment. We call resonably agree that citizens do not need to own shoulder fired rocket launchers for home defense or hunting and we all agree that is a good "ban." Let's just extend it to handguns because they obviously are useless for hunting and can be easily replaced by tasers for home defense. Handguns only empower criminal activity. There is no self-defense scenario wherein a taser cannot perform the same job as a handgun.

And don't underestimate our federal government's ability to attack its own citizens. Look up accounts of the gun confiscations in Katrina. Look up the Military Commissions Act or Presidential Directive 51. George W. Bush is uninterested in constitutional limits on federal power, and gradually over the decades we have surrendered immense control over our lives to the feds. They haven't had to conquer us with force. Bureaucracy and taxation and our own ignorance has toppled our individual sovereignty quite handily and quietly.

The second amendment is better than a standing army, and a standing army indirectly violates the second amendment. Just look at how the Iraqi people have kept the world's biggest, baddest military from controlling their country with nothing more than RPGs, AK-47s and improvised bombs. The individual right to own weapons guarantees a nation's immunity against conquering forces.

I think it also is the best protection against domestic terrorism, because no potential airline hijacker would dare take on 200 passengers any one of whom might be just as well-armed as he is. When a terrorist strikes, it is not the feds who are there on the spot in time to preempt him. It is the potential victims, and they need to be at liberty to defend themselves. (In spite of that, dealing with terrorism does require addressing foreign policy, with an end to interventionism. What terrorist would choose to come over two thousand miles of land and sea to assault complete strangers, unless their government had imposed itself negatively on his life somehow?)

Standing armies eventually need enemies to fight if they are to justify their existence. This makes them the antithesis of peace. Our military was meant to be the amalgam of volunteer militias within the states, so that the army would practically cease to exist in times of peace, and instantly coalesce into a powerhouse of defense if we were ever actually attacked. I think people have forgotten that the USA is a grouping of federated independent States, not some USSR-style body dominated from the halls of Washington. Come to think of it, a standing army should be considered a compromise of the second amendment, since it creates a federalized group of citizens who can potentially exert unlawful force on their neighbors without allowing the victim any recourse for the crime. The constitutional lack of a standing army is a mechanism designed to keep the federal government weak enough that it can be altered and overthrown if it ever deviates from its legitimate purposes. With the amount of military force now available to the federal government (the theft of the National Guard from the states, the federalization and militarization of local police forces), they can now ignore the Constitution with impunity, because the people can no longer challenge them with that trump card of all politics -- violent force. A standing army basically creates a caste of super-citizens who get unlimited gun rights so long as they unconditionally do the bidding of the feds. Not a good situation.

The one and only standing military the Constitution calls for is a navy, which is a military body that operates outside of all the states. A standing navy is perfectly constitutional and does not necessarily pose a threat to citizens, since its jurisdiction lies outside the states rather than within.

Until you understand what the federalist structure of the USA is and what it really means, the second amendment won't make sense to you.

The 2nd Amendment was written BEFORE we had a police force or a regular standing Army. And I agree with Stardate that it is idiotic to think that a armed citizen can somehow "hold off" our army. The entire premise of the government attacking its own people it too ridiculous for even Tom Clancy. You'd have to get ALL of Congress to go along with the idea, All the Supreme Court, the President and now you need ALL the military Commanders of every single branch of our Armed Forces to all universally agree to shoot citizens. Not only that but you now need to get the actual soliders themselves to agree to shoot woman and children on sight! Um, sorry. But that's fantasyland. A lot of gunowners have seen "Red Dawn" 500 times in a row and think, yeah! I want to do that. But the reality is that a military coup in the US is a physical impossibility and even if it were theoritically possible -- they'd just blow you up from a mile away either with tanks or aircraft. Yeah, the idea of "fending of the government with the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other" would make an awesome summer blockbuster -- but it ain't ever gonna happen in real life. In the meantime we're flooding our country with handguns and enabling criminals to commit crimes. For every 1 handgun legally purchased 500 are being put into the hands of criminals. Ban the manufacture and sale of handguns in the US. Buy all the rifles you want, but handguns are only used for crime and are pretty ineffective for self-defense. Why not replace handguns with tasers if your desperate for something to put in your shoulder holster? There is nothing a taser can't do that's the same as a handgun in terms of self-defense. The key difference is that you can't really mug someone, carjack someone or hold up a gas station with a taser. Let's be intelligent about self defense. Ban handguns, but allow rifles.

The problem with the second amendment is the way it says citizens can keep and bear arms. It says that a well REGULATED MIlitia Is needed to secure the freedoms that we hold dear. If the founding fathers meant what they said then it is up to the state and governments to maintian the auxilery means of protecting our nation. It does not mean that the right to bear arms should be held by those that are untrained and to crazy to be trusted with arms. This is what regulation means.

Would a gun do much to protect ourselves from our government? probably not. However, I think the point that Huckabee is trying to make is that if you let the government take away one of our rights, you're giving them the power to take away all of our rights.

" The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was take every gun away from Germany citizens. "

1. That doesn't answer my question.

2. Every country on Earth where people cannot just buy guns as they like became a nazi or communist dictatorship. Not.

3. The same German citizens made Hitler Hitler. The very reason why you can talk about him now is that most Germans actually liked what Hitler told them. That had nothing to do with guns but a lot to do with the outcome of WWI, the Great Depression and general stupidity of the masses. You want to say that a similar combination of circumstances has any chance to occur today in the US? Come on.
Hitler got the support of the very people you think should have had guns which somehow would have prevented the rise of Hitler.

" You may hate guns but I promise you the day this government takes away our rights to own weapons I would start to worry."

I don't hate guns I just find it's stupid when people think they could somehow defend themselves against today's government if the government in fact could decide to kill them. You couldn't do a damn thing if that happened.
You really think FBI agents don't go an arrest you because they fear you could shoot them? You think the Air Force doesn't bomb your house because they think you would shoot down their planes? Hello?

This whole concept is based on paranoia.
Much like the outcry over the "loss of civil liberties".
The government is coming the government is coming!

Most Americans are so good at being afraid of all the wrong things. It seems to me they can't live without being afraid of something and/or someone. This has become the most paranoid nation on Earth. It would be funny if it was not ridiculous.

Anyway, I don't have a gun and I'm not afraid that someone from the government will come and kill, hurt or rob me.
The likelihood that someone NOT employed by the government will do that is actually far bigger. Look at the FBI's crime report. How many victims of gun violence were shot by a man or woman employed by the government as opposed to someone who just happened to have a gun because:

1. he loves guns (primitive emotion, to say the least)

2. got a gun because he felt he would look stronger
than he really is (primitive macho mentality rooted in severe inferiority complex, widespread phenomenon in the South particuarly among conservative males)

3.got a gun because he was afraid of someone

4. got a gun because he wanted to commit a crime

If you want to argue that you need a gun to defend
yourself against criminals, fine. That unfortunately makes sense as virtually everyone in the US can get a gun and there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

But this "I need a gun because otherwise the government would kill/injure/arrest/rob me" tale is bullshit. That you will drown in your own bathtub tomorrow has more chance than the US becoming a dictatorship like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.
And even if it did your gun would not save your skin. It would be a pathetically inefficient tool against the US military.

Hey Stardate let me give you a little history lesson.

The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was take every gun away from Germany citizens.

Stalin did the same thing when he came to power.

You may hate guns but I promise you the day this government takes away our rights to own weapons I would start to worry.

Oh please. What could you do with a handgun or even an AK 47 against a violent government in the age of F 16s and B 52s?

Or what can you do with your gun against an FBI agent?
Or any other law enforcement official?
If you shoot him you end up in prison -- unless it's a case of legitimate self defense but that takes a criminal act on the part of the agent.