Supreme court and right to bear arms
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
March 2, 2010 9:26am CST
There is a new arguement being put forth to the supreme court. Does the "right to bear arms" only apply to the federal, state, and local government?
That is what is being argued...that the law (right)applies to the government...but not to average citizens.
I think this is a load of crap. But tell me what you think. THe supreme court is not expected to rule in favor of this.
5 people like this
7 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
2 Mar 10
"A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the [/i]PEOPLE[i] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It's not rocket science....don't know why the would even HAVE to rule on this one.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
2 Mar 10
I know it is not rocket science...but there people out there who are bound and determined to take this right away from us. They could care less about the constituion.
How did this even make it to the supreme court?
1 person likes this
@kens84reliant (2)
• United States
3 Mar 10
Those of you who are history buffs can easily research the simple fact that all past and present dictatorships established themselves by first and foremost disarming the populace. This was usually preceded by convincing the masses that the state would protect them from all "bad' things, so personal armament was not necessary. People would give up their right of self defense based on the promise that they would be made "safe" by the powers that be. In all cases, the powers that be are the real threat to personal freedom. An armed society is a polite society.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
2 Mar 10
I saw one report from Chili and the armed citizens protecting their homes from looters. They organized a civilian patrol to prevent outsiders from entering their neighborhood. They could not depend upon the government to protect them. This is what the founding fathers had in mind with the right to bear arms. It also serves as a check on the power of the government. As long as the people can defend them selves the government can be held in check.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
2 Mar 10
I agree completely. Lets hope the supreme court does the right thing.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
2 Mar 10
The constitution clearly states that "citizens" have the right to bear arms. Not just the government. The supreme court is not expect to rule in favor of it.
This is just stupid. But scarey that anyone would even try to interpret the constitution that way.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
2 Mar 10
I would love to know how this boneheaded argument made it to the supreme court in the first place. What a waste of the Court's time. Since the wording of the 2nd. amendment clearly states it's intention, there is no way this argument can win.
1 person likes this
@dbusichio (80)
• United States
2 Mar 10
This will not go very far. How many times have they tried to take away the right to bar arms? This is another progressive far left movement to change the constitution.
But, don't hold your breath, this is not the end of Obama's obsession to bring change. So far he's batting less than 50.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
2 Mar 10
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
Since the second amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," I would say it applies to more than just the government, federal, state, and local.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
2 Mar 10
yep I agree. It seem pretty simple to me. But some idoits don't seem to be able to read really well.
1 person likes this
@Justathought12 (103)
• United States
3 Mar 10
It should not be hard to understand the wording used in the Constitution. "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infriged". Seems fairly straight forward and to the point.
