I still believe in american values and the law. Americans have the the right to keep and bear arms. That means people have the power not the government, The second ammendment needs to be respected.

Sent by American advocate | 10:26 AM ET | 11-21-2007

U.S. Constitution.
Copyright 1787
ALL RIGHTS Reserved

Sent by Mike | 11:30 AM ET | 11-21-2007

The willful blindness of gun advocates to the full text of the Second Amendment is staggering. Let's simplify. If you had a lease that said something like "In case of emergency or suspected abandonment, OWNER may enter, inspect, and/or repair the premises at any time," would you argue that one could just ignore the first clause and conclude that the owner could enter the apartment any time he or she wanted? Chopping off half a sentence to arrive at your preferred meaning doesn't make it so.

Sent by Memom | 11:41 AM ET | 11-21-2007

Gun advocates mainly just hijack the meaning of the 2nd amendment, gleefully ignoring the context in which the founding fathers wrote it. Not only do they hijack the first clause, but they misinterpret it. This does not refer to the right to hunt game but rather the right to protect oneself from governmental oppression. At the present moment, the need for a gun seems to be only for pleasure or hunting. This is not what the 2nd amendment is referring to.

Sent by Gun loving is Anti American | 12:02 PM ET | 11-21-2007

The Volstead Act (both enactment of Prohibition and its repeal) proved a number of aspects of American life.

There are certain ingredients you can't get rid of, pass all the laws you want.

Prohibition proved you can't get rid of alcohol. Gun owndership and abortion are two other areas that can't be eliminated. Either a purchaser gets it above ground, or underground.

This argument extends into the grey area of the over funded war on drugs, both legal and the illegal variety.

Oh, yeah. You can't seem to outlaw poverty. The War on Poverty pretty much goes the way of the War on Drugs, the War on Guns, the War on Abortion, the
War on Liquor.

Seems we can't get rid of fossil fuel. The War on Oil keeps getting bigger. Along with the War on Nuclear and Biological Weapons.

Ergo, if you want to keep something in circulation....declare war on it? Doesn't matter if the publicity is good or bad, just spell the names right.

The more one faction of the Chinese government fights gambling, the more casinos pop up on Macau.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 12:23 PM ET | 11-21-2007

Well, the first part of the second amendment stresses the importance of militias. Perhaps we should shut down the military (an enormous and embarrassing waste of our national financial resources) and educate our students in weapons use and safety (think karate class). With an all volunteer army, that comes together when there is a real need, war would be more democratic, and much harder to wage over frivolous causes (the war in Iraq).

Plus it would give us the opportunity to improve the education system. The single most important issue today.

Sent by Jody Sol | 1:07 PM ET | 11-21-2007

Then what's to stop these militia groups from diverging from the common good and following warlord, such that we end up with a divided nation and tribal communities? You may call the military embarrassing, though I wouldn't, but it is necessary that it be controlled by the government. In which case, the military is neither embarrassing nor costly, the government is. And indeed a well regulated militia seems appropriate to fend off potential oppression by a government, but an amendment allowing for militias should not facilitate wanton and reckless use of firearms (and criminal use as defined by local, state and federal laws), we need checks established so they are used properly. Why can't pro-gun advocacy groups just come clean, we all know that they would like to be able to own and operate anything from a BB-gun to a Howitzer at the expense of public safety, because oh that's right their ownership of the Howitzer could allow them to fight back.

Sent by E | 3:05 PM ET | 11-21-2007

Okay, let's disband the military completely. I'm all for that. Then let's all go over to Hugh Hefner's house and hang around in the grotto swimming pool.

From Hef's house we call Valdimir Putin, and after Russia disbands their military, and Vlad comes over to join us in Hef's swimming pool, we call the Chinese and tell them everyone is disbanding their militaries.

After about a weekend of disbanding all the world's militaries, we discover that North Korea was lying to us. They didn't really disband their military and they aren't coming over for our pool party after all.

Now what?

And I was just getting so close to personally knowing Miss November. Dang it all!!

fred call

Sent by fred call | 3:35 PM ET | 11-21-2007

I should clarify that I was not advocating independently operating militias, but rather the end of a standing army.

And yes, war and it's accompanying military forces are an embarrassment. They constitute an inability to resolve conflict reasonably. War is an animalistic act, and demeans our human dignity.

Sent by Jody Sol | 4:01 PM ET | 11-21-2007

I think we should go back and do as Thomas Jefferson said when there is a question about a law. Search for the original author's intent. There was more than one reason why our founding fathers saw fit to make this a right.
Afterall . . .were they not revolutionaries?

Sent by linda kutzer | 8:54 PM ET | 11-21-2007

It has been well established by Constitutional experts that, whenever the phrase "the people" is used in the Constitution, it is referring to an individual right. There is an enormous body of research on the subject. Educate yourselves, dear readers.

Sent by anonymous | 8:53 PM ET | 11-22-2007

I am a clear advocate for "We the people" to have the right to posess fire arms. But for those that think that it is to be only for those in a "well regulated militia" then I believe that I meet that intent also. Prior to my 18th birthday I joined a militia, also known as Selective Service. As such, I can be called up to take arms through the draft. However, since this provision only applies to males above the age of 18 this a clearly sexist argument that doesn't consider women, in the general population, to be able-bodied to defend our rights. This, of course, excludes women serving in the military. I believe that anybody that is of the age of majority that can defend the constitution has the right to bear arms. Self defense is an intergral part of the second amendment. If unable to defend ourselves how are we to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or better yet for those in the militia crowd point of view I ask, "If you cannot protect yourself then how are you able to protect the rights of The People?" Especially those that are not able bodied to protect themselves. I assure you that a gun is a great equalizer. I think of the recent terrible assalts of elderly women and I think that if just one had a gun then this rash of horrible crimes could be stopped or lessened by sending a message that The People will defend themselves and will bring the criminal to justice, preferably by holding the felons until the police arrive. As for those proposing the argument that this does not and should not include hunting does not understand the American military history. The best military shots were "drilled" by being hunters. I can and do argue that hunting is an integral part of becoming a better shot, improving stealth, and having the disipline necessary to be a soldier. Can these objectives be obtained via different avenues? Yes, however would you consider a marksman firing at a stable paper target or at a bird in flight to have a higher degree of compentency? It is obvious that the hunter is better. Therefore, the rights of the People need to be restored and I hope that this court does the right thing and reinforces the constitution.

Sent by Kris K | 11:49 PM ET | 11-26-2007

2nd: 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 Constitution can be amended--why has no one tried to repeal/amend the 2nd to clear this up once and for all.

If, as the "collective" argument folks argue, and since basically there aren???t "militias" as in the 1700s, then repeal the 2nd in its entirety! No guns period.
- Only local, state and federal military/law enforcement personnel would be allowed to carry, but ONLY while on duty.
- These people should NOT be allowed to carry their firearms home, or carry concealed, once they leave work.
- They should not have any more right to protect their families than the general free American.

If it's an individual right--then amend the 2nd to get rid of the first clause.
- We???ll have to come up with some way to determine which firearms will be allowed for the protection of homes.
- Also, handguns are best suited for handicapped individuals.
- The first part of the sentence should be stricken from the amendment because we don???t have militias, as they were back in the 1700s.

I still say "the right" of "the people" make it an individual right, just as "the people" is considered an individual right in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments.
- Since the founders wrote this particular amendment in this particular way all we can do is go back to all that was discussed as the Constitution was being developed and try to get into their minds to see what they may have being trying to convey.

Again, why haven???t we repealed or amended the 2nd amendment to settle this argument once and for all??

Sent by itr674 | 9:41 AM ET | 03-19-2008

I found statements by Sen. John F. Kennedy and Sen. Hubert Humphrey at http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm. I???ve studied the Second for a long time and never seen these. I inserted a return so every word can be read. In one sense I hate to post the Kennedy statement, but???

Sen. John F. Kennedy's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960):

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy.

Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country.

For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

Sen. Hubert Humphrey's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960):

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.

But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Sent by itr674 | 12:14 PM ET | 03-19-2008

"Nina Totenberg reports that the court will examine if the Second Amendment protects a collective, military-style right to have guns (the 'well-regulated militia' portion highlighted by those who support gun control) or an individual right (the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms')."

This is a false dichotomy, since the Supreme Court found in United States v. Miller (1939) that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". The Militia ARE the people. The Court drew an explicit distinction between the Militia and a standing army composed of professional soldiers.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

Sent by Ernie Russell | 9:33 PM ET | 04-15-2008

My previous comment included a link to findlaw, which wants a registration. Here's a better link to United States v. Miller (1939):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

Sent by Ernie Russell | 10:07 PM ET | 04-15-2008