What Militia?
There exists no State Militia within the Several States, there in no Army of Virginia, ney, there is no Army of Illinois. No State Militia as guaranteed by our National Constitution has existed since the close of the Civil War.
Bill Clinton, in the 1990’s attempted to lawyer the definition of Militia as that of the National Guard. However, the National Guard swears fidelity to the President of the United States and the the District of Columbia, The National Guard are legally defined as Federal Troops and are prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act from assisting any State Law Enforcement agency in the keeping of State Laws.

Whereas a State Militia swears fidelity to the Governor of the State and the Laws of the State and for the protection of the people of that State. The argument that firearms ownership should be restricted to members of this non-existent Militia equates to firearm ownership passing to no one, and for the protection of none.

Harrison Richter

I have a real big issue with you informing the public that guns are responsible for 80% of the crime and or homicides. The true fact of the matter is that once again the public finds it feasible to not take responsibility for the crime commited and continues to blame an object that can not function on its own to commit these crimes, therefore not making the person holding the gun responsible for his own actions. Once again I will state that guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE and the responsibility for the crime needs to be placed there and nowhere else.
Just a note If someone wants you dead they will find a way to do it and in what ever manner that they can, maybe even using a innocent golf club would it then be proper to outlaw golf clubs?

It appears to me that the majority of the country are law abiding citizens and are NOT in favor of gun control.
As the saying goes you will have to pry them from my cold dead hands.
Guns don’t kill people- people kill people!!! When will you idiots learn, what is next butter knives or perhaps water since some criminals have drowned their victims.

What are we becoming???

I have two guns and 4 children, they are grown now, but we never had an issue with them…when kids get their parents guns and kill each other, there is more wrong with the family, than just owing a gun….

The Second Amendment clearly states “the right of the people…”; rights belong to individual people while “powers” belong to the State (Federal, state, local). Secondly, please read the USC Title 10, § 311 (e.g.: the law of the land) which clearly defines “militia” as being BOTH the “organized militia” (what today we call the National Guard) and “unorganized militia” (”all men between the ages of 17 and 45… who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia”.) As used in the Bill of Rights, “militia” includes all men of fighting age, whether serving in a branch of the military or not.

The right of an individual to own (keep) and carry (bear) firearms is undeniably protected by the Bill of Rights. No government entity may thus impose unreasonable restrictions on firearms ownership by its citizens. Period. Reasonable restrictions commonplace in today’s society may include no personal firearms allowed inside a courthouse, Federal building, or hospital.

Would you also support an argument that the First Amendment was only intended to apply to politicians, newspaper editors, and TV anchors? Freedom of speech is similarly a right of the people, not a power of the state.

All I got to say - along with about 23 local hunting buddies - is that the day this country takes away my guns, is the day they’ll have one HELL of a war on their hands.

This is a completely ridiculous notion. Yet again the government is trying to restrict rights that are ours by RIGHT. Unwarranted surveillance, wire taps, and prisons without trial; the government of today is looking more and more like the ‘Big Brother’ of 1984. Next they will start making us disappear only because we have ideas that may differ from theirs. Be careful how much you are willing to give away, as it is much harder to get it back. It’s not conspiracy theory anymore, it’s happening right in front of us. The unjustified war in Iraq, the ‘Patriot Act’, and no accountability leads to only one thing. Chaos. In that case yes, I would like to own a gun. I agree that people need to take personal responsibility. Typical courtroom drama includes blaming anyone and everyone, instead of saying that those who commit crimes are accountable. If punishment actually fit the crime, we may not be having this problem. Plea bargains and ‘my mama didn’t love me’ are far too common. If only we had the courage to carry out the maximum punishment for those who perpetrate crimes against others, this issue would not be an issue at all.

The question is not, “What does “right to bear arms” mean?”, the question is, “What does “the right of the people” mean?” This phrase is used in two other amendments, and it refers to people as individuals, not as a collective. No one would argue that the 4th Amendment ‘right of the people’ to secure themselves against unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to individuals. Therefore how can “the right of the people” in Amendment IV mean individuals, but “the right of the people” in Amendment II mean the collective?

Not less than 10 other Amendments refer specifically to the rights of individuals. That makes it clear that the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments were intended to pertain to ‘people’ as individuals.

As rational adults we cannot deny that violent crime could intrude upon us at any time.

Quite simply, law abiding citizens who choose to obtain a hand gun for self-defense should be allowed to do so. And I believe that our Constitution guarantees that right.

Phil

“Until now, the Court has said that the Second Amendment is a general right related to the keeping of militias.”

That statement is a patent lie … the USCS hasn’t approached the 2nd Amendment in over 216 years … which is why all media outlets *except* CNN has this story at the top of page 1.

The anti-gun mob likes to interpret the 2nd’s verbage with modern context … which is intellectually perverted considering that Amendment was written in 18th century lexicon.

“Militia” in the parlance of the day meant any able bodied male from age 14 on up … and they had to supply their own firearms and ammunition if called upon the State or volunteered service to attend whatever emergency required their service whether it be defense against animals, Indians, bad guys, the British or what have you.

There was no mechanism in place in the 1700’s for the state or federal government to manufacture, store or issue firearms to people in a time of emergency and therefore said firearms were to come from the general populous … ie … The People …. and in order to do so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To place a colonial era circumstance in the context of modern times is patently absurd.

The STATE can not protected me or you!!!!! Even if I have time to call 911, my family would be dead by the time the police arrived at my home. People who are responsible hand gun owners don’t commit
murder. Even with DC’s strict hand gun law, How many people die?

Gun Control hasn’t curbed the incidents of shootings in DC or anywhere else, the old saying “When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns” is true.

Our founding fathers were very forward thinking people. THey had just left a contry run by dictatorship of the king and tyrany reined. We must also remember that when the constitution and this amendmentwere written, there were no standing armies, no Navy and no Marine corp. The militia referred to in the bill of rights is the people of this country that were here and fought for thier freedom. That militia was refered to to be formed and used to supress and form of governmental contro or tyrany. SHould the government become to big or constrictive, then this militia was tere to correct that action. This was the checks and balance of our countries formation. Militia has nothing to do with the National Guard as these are direct extensions of the federal government. Militia refers to the people, armed and ready to correct a corrupt and dictorial form of forced govenrment. Armed people are citizens, unarmed people are subjects.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution were called by the founders the Bill of Rights. Reading ALL of them, it is apparent that they were describing the Rights of the People. Governments don’t need their rights protected; we need protection from a government that seeks to deny us our rights. They didn’t need to give the States the right to have a Militia, they already had that right. When this was written, there was no standing Army, nor a standing Militia for that matter. So why mention it at all? To understand that you simply have to look at what an Army was used for. The Army of the King was used to suppress, subjugate, terrorize and murder our Patriots. I think we were reminding ourselves that the Militia was composed of a free people that would be subject to themselves, not a dictator, not a monarch or even a President who oversteps his constitutional boundaires. So while we have changed what Militia means, we the people still means the individual citizen. If we want to remain free, then we demand the right to bear arms as a reminder to those in power that it is the people who grant the government rights, not the other way around.

i have to wonder what kind of arms the authors of our Constitution had in mind……semi-automatics?

something gets lost in translation when you try to take words written in another time and use them verbatim in our very different world today.

gun control should not be about trying to keep firearms out of everyone’s hands. i know plenty of people who own them and it doesn’t worry me for a second that they do.

it is about protecting society though. and doing something to ensure dangerous and mentally unstable individuals can’t abuse the rights we’ve been given….however those rights might be translated.

Guns = Trouble.

They always do. They take no time whatsoever to kill people. It is over in a split second. A golf club as weapon at least gives me a chance to escape. Never you mind that this is 2008 not 1798. Laws need to be updated, changed, and reviewed. It is a natural process. Let it go.

A gun is about as useful in DC as a wireless laptop in the middle of Montana. Get over guns people. Where did all these gun fanatic comments come from anyway? (Someone tip you people off to the article?) Pry ‘what’ from your dead hands? One hell of a war on ‘whose’ hands? Let it go. If a law is changed you have to abide by it or change it. Which reminds me, that Patriot Act will be due soon, so let’s get that one ‘reviewed’.

And a bit about the writing, Jami Floyd writes:

“And I’m gonna be honest. This is a tough one for me. Cause I know I would like to have a gun if….”

Jami, you are correspondent for CNN and you are using words like ‘gonna’ and ’cause’ (meaning because)? Let’s make sure the Last Word is English please, you’re making us look bad.

Ok….I have been shot at in an attempted robbery, and it changed my life.
IT IS MY LEGAL RIGHT to carry a gun, and I am MORE than well versed on it’s proper use.
I have a right to protect my life. I will use this gun IF MY LIFE IS THREATENED. I do not care to die so some crackhead can rob me for his next hit of drugs.
My life is precious to me. I will defend it.

“Laws need to be updated, changed, and reviewed. It is a natural process. Let it go.”

This is true in many cases, but not this one. It is already illegal to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. But people do it anyway. If you add another law making guns illegal, do you honestly believe that it would stop criminals? I can picture the thought process on that one… “I think I’ll go rob a gas station, and rape the cashier, but I better not use a gun. Those things are illegal.”

It is my legal right to own a gun.