The 2nd Amendment

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Candy ass, you want to cite some of those Supreme Court decisions that have changed the original interpretation?

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has come out against all guns. Different Jackson than over the weekend.

I googled Sheila Jackson and found the following statements, below in red, she made on the 17th of this month. No matter how many times l read her statements, and even try to read something between the lines, I can't find her making any such a statement that she "has come out against all guns."

Would you please take the time to cite the article in which she made such a statement.

For over 10 years in many sessions of Congress I have introduced the HR 227, the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act. I have been an advocate for more gun safety laws in America since I have arrived here in Congress. In one year on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun. Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968. U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. In order to promote safety for our children it is imperative this Congress brings to the House floor NOW the following gun safety laws:

1. An immediate ban on all assault weapons
2. The closing of the gun show loopholes
3. A more structured mental health support system for families that will allow them to get immediate assistance in regards to mental issues. There should be some pathway in which families can acknowledge mental issues within their family and seek public funded or private counseling services immediately.
4. We must look at the design of primary and secondary schools in which these schools may need to have reinforced bullet proof windows and reinforced secure entrances.
5. Expanding state laws holding adults responsible for securing their weapons.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Candy ass, you want to cite some of those Supreme Court decisions that have changed the original interpretation?

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has come out against all guns. Different Jackson than over the weekend.

Learn to READ, preferably for comprehension mop-boy, and get back to me. There's 3 fu*king pages in this thread alone that contain links and quotes on this topic.

Regarding Sheila Jackson OR Sheila Jackson Lee, I don't have the slightest idea wtf you're talking about since I didn't mention her/either one in ANY of my posts.

You struggling a bit this afternoon during happy hour, sport?

Besides, it's Candy-Up-The-Ass to you. Want some?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by essence

IBH, thanks for the link. I have given it a quick read. Interesting. I suggest everybody does the same. It ain;t what you think it is.

Let me take some quotes from the link provided. I have taken the trouble to go through that rather lengthy document, and I suggest anybody interested in the issue does likewise.

It seems many here do not have a clue what the second ammendment is all about.

Did read it, and it's obvious you skipped over several predominant parts, essence: "The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "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." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".

"The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government". William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

"The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with Thomas Jefferson. This suggests that their assessment, as contemporaries of the Constitution's drafters, should be afforded special consideration.

"Later commentators agreed with Tucker and Rawle. For instance, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.'

And as Jackie S. noted:

"The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

So it's you, essence, who doesn't have a clue as to what the second ammendment is all about.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by timpage

Not responsive. Was the kid a member of the well regulated militia that the 2nd refers to? If not, was his possession of the weapons he used to kill the children the result of the "well regulated" provisions of the Amendment?

Get it? I know you're stupid based on what you post, but this seems simple enough. Do you just not like any answer that your pea-brain can come up with?

Don't you follow the news, Little Timmy? Adam Lanza gained possession of weapons by committing a crime, Little Timmy. Lanza killed his mother and took the weapons, Little Timmy.

Originally Posted by timpage

This 2nd Amendment shit gets all confusing when you start applying facts to what you dimwits like to propose as simple legal propositions, doesn't it?

Not a one of you has even a simplistic response to the direct questions I proposed. All stupid rhetoric.

I'll ask again:

1. Was this kid who shot the 6 year olds a member of the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment explicity refers to?

2. If not, how does the 2nd Amendment apply to protect his possession of the weapons he murdered these 6 year olds with?

3. If so, did the ability of this kid to get these weapons that he shot the 6 year olds with satisfy the "well-regulated" requirements of the 2nd Amendment? Or was his ability to obtain these weapons and to murder these 6 year old kids not "well-regulated'?

Anybody?

You're the Dim-wit, Little Timmy. The Second Amendment addresses the right of the 'individual' to bear arms, Little Timmy. The rest of your argument is asinine, specious hyperbole, Little Timmy.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by essence

The rest of what you say I generally agree with and is more or less what I have said or implied elsewhere. But CoG will always reject anything I say because of geography and pre conceptions.

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Well, I was trying to be facetious regarding IBH and should have probably added the "not" myself.

Okay fuckwads, here's another selection you two Randy4Andies chose to skip over.

Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."

"But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

The following represents a list of twelve scholarly articles which have dealt with the subject of the right to keep and bear arms as reflected in the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The scholars who have undertaken this research range from professors of law, history and philosophy to a United States Senator. All have concluded that the second amendment is an individual right protecting American citizens in their peaceful use of firearms."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hays, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, A STUDY IN JUDICIAL MISINTERPRETATION, 2 Wm. & Mary L.R. 381 (1960)

Sprecher, THE LOST AMENDMENT, 51 Am. Bar Assn. J. 554 & 665 (2 parts) (1965) Comment, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS; A NECESSARY CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OR AN OUTMODED PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS? 31 Albany L.R. 74 (1967) Levine & Saxe, THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 7 Houston L. R. 1 (1969)

McClure, FIREARMS AND FEDERALISM, 7 Idaho L. R. 197 (1970)

Hardy & Stompoly, OF ARMS AND THE LAW, 51 Chi.-Kent L. R. 62 (1974)

Weiss, A REPLY TO ADVOCATES OF GUN CONTROL LAW, 52 Jour. Urban Law 577 (1974)

Whisker, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSEQUENT EROSION OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, 78 W. Va. L. R. 171 (1976)

Caplan, RESTORING THE BALANCE: THE SECOND AMENDMENT REVISITED, 5 Fordham

Urban L.J. 31 (1976)

Caplan, HANDGUN CONTROL: CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL?, 10 N.C.

Central L.J. 53 (1979)

Cantrell, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 53 Wis. Bar Bull. 21 (Oct. 1980)

Halbrook, THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS,

4 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1 (1981)


Furthermore: "The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

[LexusLover]

Kentucky in 1822 on the United States Constitution?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Kentucky in 1822 on the United States Constitution?

It's one of several cases the article cites, LL.

It's from a list "of twenty-one American decisions, spanning the period from 1822 to 1981, which have analysed right to keep and bear arms provisions in the light of statutes ranging from complete bans on handgun sales to bans on carrying of weapons to regulation of carrying by permit systems. Those decisions not only explained the nature of such a right, but also struck down legislative restrictions as violative of it . . ."

1. * State v. Blacker, 291 Or. 255, — —— P.2d — —— (1981).
"The statute is written as a total proscription of the mere possession of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy is concerned, is constitutionally protected."
"In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to consider defendant's 'overbreadth' attack to mean that the statute swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which in this setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by sec 27."

2. * State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."

3. Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E.2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981).
"[N]ot making applications available at the chiefs office effectively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense."

4. Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980).
"We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry the right to bear arms for their self-defense."

5. Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W.2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975).
"The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I, sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, with the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of concealed arms."

6. * City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, at 745 (en banc 1972).
"As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitutionally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13."

7. * City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P.2d 737, at 738 (N.M. App. 1971). "It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent the ordinance under consideration is void."

8. State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P.2d 188, at 192 (1952).
"The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home, his person and property."

9. People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950).
"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should be kept in mind, in the construction of a statute of such character, that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the prevention of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or property."

10. * People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P.2d 246 (en banc 1936).
"It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all purposes. The state ... cannot disarm any class of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person is denied the right to posses arms for such protection."

11.* Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11 S.W. 2d 678 (1928).
"There is no qualifications of the prohibition against the carrying of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made unlawful 'to carry on or about the person any pistol,' that is, any sort of pistol in any sort of manner. *** [W]e must accordingly hold the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol invalid."

12. * People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."

13 * State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
"We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as 'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy."

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."

14. * State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).
"The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."

15. * In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, at 598-99, 70 p. 609 (1902).
"The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the following language: '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.' The language of section 11, article I of the constitution of Idaho, is as follows: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.' Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages."
19th century cases

16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."

17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
"We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation."

18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
"The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."

20. Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833).
"But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, [the statute of Northampton,] or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, 'that the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.' Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; neither, after so solumn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it, the absence of such a view."

[LordBeaverbrook]

COG (it'll probably ruin your day LOL) and Randy +1 and kudos to essence and ExNYer for thougtful and informative posts. TimPage brings up an important topic, though not in as helpful way as I would wish, though I understand where his anger is coming from. It is amusing that IBS disproved his post that SCOTUS supported an individual's right to bear arms with his listing of the 2008 and 2010 decisions. Before it had been unclear exactly what the entire law of the land was. I think militias, while not entirely irrelevant, have lost most of their relevance (try defending against a Predator drone with your AK or whatever - even a .50 can't shot 10K feet straight up) so it is likely that the current individual right will be balanced against the common good and that decision overturned. Until that time reasonable people need to come together and figure out how to avoid some of this madness. It is tragic that a couple of classrooms of kids got killed in one incident, but every week a bunch of kids get killed be gunfire and little gets said. IMHO that is the really terrible tragedy. If more of the guns were well locked up, unloaded, or bought back when unwanted we might have fewer deaths. Gun laws and bans will not solve these issues alone, but are one of many concrete steps to end the violence and infringe on law abiding citizens rights to a minimal degree while serving the public good. It is a tough problem.

There is also a huge amount of (often intended) misinformation from both sides on this topic, but I know this. None of us wants more elementary school children slaughtered (though why we didn't do this after Columbine, Aurora or Va.Tech is beyond me. Is it OK for teenagers and college kids to be slaughtered but not first graders?) nor do most of us want everyone's guns confiscated even if it were possible without horrendous bloodshed and insurrection.

A couple of things I think are missing from discussion are the high capacity magazines (HCMs - I too am a gun owner, but a hunter occasionally too) which have little utility except for "fun" and enormous human carnage. IMHO it is small inconvenience (and probably will save few if any lives, but it might) if we all only have clips that only hold 5 or 10 rounds (the Sandy Hook shooter discharged about 100 rounds in 4 minutes I understand using as many as six per person he killed). Yeah, it is cool and convenient to blast 30 or 50 or 100 rounds out without having to reload, but is it worth these mass killings? Also, "assault weapons" are semi-automatic and usually less powerful than most hunting rifles, but do "look scary" and military and usually have a pistol grip and the capability to take HCMs. They have shorter barrels so they are more useful in confined spaces like classrooms and halls, while "assault rifles" are selective file (fully or semi auto) and only allowed for military use or under federal license. We don't need to outlaw scary or durable or 'military' just for their own sake, we need to get rid of things that contribute to the killing if at all possible. These differences matter to some exent, but in reality somewhere between 2% and 8% of gun crimes are committed with rifles while somewhere around 30% or more of these crimes are committed with HCMs of some kind. Then there are the issues of locking the guns up and mental health issues not to mention a culture of violence that somehow seems to incite teen and twenties men (mostly) to commit these horrendous crimes. I saw a proposal to raise the gun ownership age to 26 which was intriguing if difficult to do and possibly not effective. Australia allegedly lowered its gun violence and murders significantly with a tough assault weapons ban, though with most of our crimes being committed with pistols I'm not sure how well that would work here. My continual question is, "what will actually work?"

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Don't you follow the news, Little Timmy? Adam Lanza gained possession of weapons by committing a crime, Little Timmy. Lanza killed his mother and took the weapons, Little Timmy

So that makes it all OK? We shouldn't try to do more to keep these sorts of things from happening? Or are you one of those who say that the only good solution is to have lots more people carrying everywhere? In elementary schools, really? How about kindergarten and nursery school too?

Thought I'm a gun owner, I look at this a bit like the smoking controversy. I don't think non-smokers should be forced to smoke or even breath smoke to put up with the smokers. Nor do I think that people everywhere should be forced to buy guns and get concealed carry permits just to feel safe in a public place. I really don't want to carry except when hunting or going to the range. I am interested in guns and like shooting, but the damn things ARE dangerous and I don't want to carry one around all the time dammit. I loved living in London partly because I felt so safe and every Bobby I spoke with didn't carry a weapon and was terribly polite. Besides, I question whether we really would be safer and have less carnage if we had more guns carried by lots more people. The gun manufacturing industry would be ecstatic though I know.

[Randy4Candy]

Well, we have now discovered that we are not going to eliminate 100% of human beings' ability to fu*k sh*t up, kill and harm people. Consequently, we have two choices:

1. Surrender, run up the white flag and buy as many guns as possible in order to protect ourselves from society allowed to run wild. No matter that while we are "defending" ourselves that we shoot innocent bystanders by the bushel. Hell, the predators, mostly unchecked, are on the loose all over the place as it is now - and not only on the streets with illegal firearms. While we are at it, don't put it all on the lesser classes, the undereducated or trained or the artsy types. There's a lot of fradulent and illegal preying going on in boardrooms of the huge banks and corporatons, too so we really don't have that far to go. It will be easy, much less hard work - just let it roll, laissez faire, let it roll.

2. Find a way to return to civility, manners and all of that "sissy" stuff, not to mention *gasp* actually "giving a damn" about other people and try to make it as hard as possible on several levels to do intentional harm to others - physically, economically and mentally/emotionally.

Pick 'em

[CuteOldGuy]

I still think RaggedyAndy posted the most intelligent response to this in post #29. And don't worry, austx, nothing posted on here ruins my day (although many have tried). If it did, I wouldn't be here. I'm not going to volunteer to have my day ruined by anyone!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Besides, I question whether we really would be safer and have less carnage if we had more guns carried by lots more people.

"We" tried prohibition,

.... but passing out booze to everyone isn't a solution either.

[JD Barleycorn]

Lexus, no more strawmen. NO ONE is saying that everyone has to be armed so get off that. In fact Kennesaw, GA passed a law several years ago saying everyone had to own a gun and they did not enforce that law.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by austxjr

So that makes it all OK? We shouldn't try to do more to keep these sorts of things from happening? Or are you one of those who say that the only good solution is to have lots more people carrying everywhere? In elementary schools, really? How about kindergarten and nursery school too?

The judge in this case said it best: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."

Originally Posted by austxjr

It is amusing that IBS disproved his post that SCOTUS supported an individual's right to bear arms with his listing of the 2008 and 2010 decisions. Before it had been unclear exactly what the entire law of the land was. I think militias, while not entirely irrelevant, have lost most of their relevance (try defending against a Predator drone with your AK or whatever - even a .50 can't shot 10K feet straight up) so it is likely that the current individual right will be balanced against the common good and that decision overturned.

It's amusing that you and the other fucktard liberals on this board want to ignore the predominant theme of the article cited and the SCOTUS rulings on the Seciond Amendment.

Furthermore: "The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Lexus, no more strawmen. NO ONE is saying that everyone has to be armed so get off that. In fact Kennesaw, GA passed a law several years ago saying everyone had to own a gun and they did not enforce that law.

Also, as stated by one of the originators of the law:

He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.

"There are many outs. When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."