Court to address: Do you have a legal right to own a gun?

[Redbaron]

VHS MOM wrote:

Take away the right of arms and many normal law abiding people become law breakers, including myself. I have thought long and hard about this issue and I would make a willing choice to break a law that was simply wrong. I would not give up my guns. Those of us in the country use guns not only for protection but for food. If they say that its not our right to own "hand Guns" it will simply move on to any type of weapon. No rifles, no bow and arrows, no Knives(that will make things tricky in the kitchen), better take away the box cutters, razor blades, and anything else that has ever been used as a weapon in history. The thing is they can not use hand guns as the only type of "arms" as in 1700's most of the weapons were long guns.
Dont get me wrong, I do believe in gun control to an extent. I dont want my kids to be able to buy an oosie at the local five and dime. But dont tell me I cant have my hand gun in my night stand safe for family protection or my rifle safe full of as many rifles as I choose to buy legally.

That's Uzi, not oosie, and no I wouldn't want your kids to buy one either. But, I would like to test shoot one. Anyone got one?

[Redbaron]

GregD548 wrote:

Here's copy of a news item from a recent magazine:
MICHIGAN CCW UPDATE
in 2001 Michigan became a "shallissue" state for concealed carry, and an additional 130,000 Michiganders have received permits, for a total 0f 155,000 in all. Despite dire predictions by anti-gunners that streets would be awash in blood, "violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years," according to the Detroit Free Press. "The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, has also declined."

Big surprise there, I guess all the anti-gunners were freaking out for no reason. We didn't all go on shooting spree's like they figured we would.

[Redbaron]

God help us wrote:

Gun laws only penalize the law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow the law. Would it bring an end to hunting?
If you want the right to own a firearm you better vote conservative because both Clinton and Obama want to outlaw gun ownership for the law abiding citizen. Thank god Bush was able to put 2 conservatives on the supreme court before leaving office.
All the talk about taking away my liberties makes me want to go buy more guns

Can I get an AMEN

[athy]

VERY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE READ THESE BEFORE VOTING-

Articles contain controversial Information ,-please AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH WHAT IS BEING WRITTEN ABOUT SEN OBAMA IN THESE ARTICLES.

Stories deal with Sen. Obama’s Past record of accomplishments-prior to his decision to run for office of president.

I have read other good articles that have been posted on these blogs but most do not contain info about his ACTUAL track record in the past-in detail.

Read what people who worked with him in the past-in Illinois- have to say. And read background of the ‘legislation’ he was involved with.

INFO IN THESE ARTICLES,AT TIMES, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS MOST OF WHAT IS INCLUDED IN SEN. OBAMA’S WEBSITE PLUS IN ARTICLES ON CNN AND WASHINGTON POST BLOGS. THESE ARTICLES NEED TO BE READ.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/...

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobby...

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/u...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/20...

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/26/pol...

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/26/oba...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/batt...

FORWARD LINKS (plus your opinion about particular articles' validity (if any exists) TO THIS BLOG. I HAVE NOT INCLUDED CLINTON ARTICLES BECAUSE I ALREADY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING HER RECORD THROUGH THE YEARS AND UNDERSTAND IT (THE GOOD/THE BAD/THE UGLY) I HAD NO NEED TO DO ANY MORE RESEARCH ON HER BUT I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT OBAMA SO I RESEARCHED ABOUT HIM-THESE ARE ARTICLES THAT I AND OTHER BLOGGERS HERE HAVE FOUND. I DID NOT INCLUDE ANY ARTICLES ON THIS LIST THAT MERELY REPEATED WHAT WASHINGTON POST/CNN/ AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN WRITING-MOST OF ARTICLES POSTED IN THOSE PUBLICATIONS ARE VERY SLANTED TOWARDS OBAMA’s CAMPAIGN EFFORTS. THEY DO NOT REPORT ON HIS ACTUAL PAST RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT WITH ANY DETAIL. THEY DO NOT DISCUSS HIS CAREER IN DETAIL IN ILLINOIS .BUT PLEASE IF ANYONE OUT THERE HAS ANY RECENT ARTICLES (PRAISING/QUESTIONING/CONDEMIN G) THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS ANY OF THE CANDIDATES-PASS THEM ON TO US SO WE CAN VOICE OUR OPINION ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE FACTS IN THOSE ARTICLES.

[Greg]

the anti gunners are socialists, who feel they are exempt from the tyranny they support.

[Lois in Sand Lake]

The right of the individual to own firearms is the one right that ensures and protects all of the others. If we lose this one, we will slowly lose all of the others.

[Batch 37 Pain is Good]

It is not up to the govt. to allow my owning a gun.

[Mrs Batch]

Mr Batch can tell you I have a gun, I know how to use a gun, and will even use that gun if necessary.

If words mean things like Obama was quoting, then "the right to keep and bear arms" should mean a lot!

[neecer]

So... does anyone know the violent crime rate in DC since they 'outlawed' guns?

Funny, last I heard, they had one of the highest murder rates in the nation!

Yeah.. obviously banning guns has really worked!

Personally, I don't own any guns. I'm not a fan of guns, but why shouldn't a citizen own a legal gun? Only the legal gun owners will be punished with outlawing guns! The criminals don't care NOW whether or not their guns are legal. What makes anyone think that changing the laws are going to change that?

And I agree with the previous person who says what next? What about my Louisville slugger? Will that be next because heaven forbid I might have to use that on a CRIMINAL who breaks into my house (IF the can get past my dog that is)?

Criminals will NEVER care whether or not their weapon of choice is legal or not, that's why they are called CRIMINALS.

[GregD548]

And now the latest buzz is Tasers! Another series of 'scare tactics' by the media and hoplophobes is about to begin. Personally, I'd much rather be zapped by a Taser than shot with a firearm, especially if the shooter subscribes to the REAL gun control definition of being able to hit your target.

[Pipingdude]

"Do you have a legal right to own a gun"

Ya know for the past few days this has troubled me. What is wrong with this question?
Than it dawned on me.

NO, I DON'T HAVE LEGAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.

I HAVE A CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN ONE.

[Batch 37 Pain is Good]

Pipingdude wrote:

"Do you have a legal right to own a gun"
Ya know for the past few days this has troubled me. What is wrong with this question?
Than it dawned on me.
NO, I DON'T HAVE LEGAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.
I HAVE A CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN ONE.

That right is one given by God as a natural right to protect one self.

[GregD548]

Wonder what the 'liberals' would post here if it was suggested that we really tighten up the freedom of speech amendment and really restrict the freedom of the press. Maybe a 7 day waiting period before someone can post a defamatory posting, license to use and keep a computer, etc.?
It comes down to the same principal. A right.

[food for thought]

2nd Amendment advocates,

I was just watching the morning news reports about Washington, DC and what they are going to do about their gun laws. It wasn't good. They apparently are going to thumb their nose at the meaning of the Supreme Court case. You see, socialist never give up on their dreams of control even when the courts smack down those controls. They either ignore the ruling or play games with its meaning. Those DC traitors were still talking about trigger locks being on the guns in the home, strict *licenses*, etc.

*licenses*- The Supreme Court said it wasn't officially ruling on the license question since the man didn't challenge the licensing requirement in his case, BUT they did rule the 2nd Amendment was an individual "right". Since by definition "rights" can NOT BE REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT (see that Declaration of Independence states that our "rights" are given to us by our creator/God [not government] and that governments were implemented in order to secure [PROTECT] them only), all of these regulations, statutes, etc. that violate the Constitution are NULL AND VOID as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution for the United States of America. Unfortunately, these SOCIALIST word manipulators in the gun CONTROL movements have tried to manipulate the word "right" to mean the same as "privilege" (which they can put controls over). That is a total SCAM. You can't turn a "right" into a "privilege". They are NOT THE SAME THING. "Rights" are given to us by our creator and are only suppose to be SECURED (protected) by our government. Now, "Privileges" (like Habeas Corpus) are given to you/slaves by man/governments and are subject to certain restrictions (Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 2 - rebellion or invasion) from the man/government in charge of those privileges.

P.S. The socialist powers that be (the CFR, the Trilaterialist, the Bilderbergs, etc.) have tried to obsure the difference between "rights" and "privileges" on purpose just like the difference between the "United States of America" (i.e. the name of our Country) versus the "United States" (i.e. now called Washington, DC) or the difference between a "resident" (more temporary - like a college students dorm room during the school year) and an "inhabitant" (more permanent/your real home - native). The most glaring manipulation is called "civil (means the state) rights". You see, the state/civil CANNOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS. They can ONLY GIVE THEIR SUBJECTS/SLAVES (14th Amendment subjects/slaves) PRIVILEGES. They should really be called "civil privileges". So how did you become their (the federal governments) subjects/slaves? You asked to become their subjects/slaves by getting their federal SS#, welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, a government birth certificate, etc. provided to you by the federal government system (By the way, WA [the scam US State] is not the same state as the state of the United States of America called Washington. Does your birth certificate say you were born in VA, WA, etc. or Virginia, Washington, etc.?) And you thought those benefits from the federal government were "free", didn't you? Open your eyes and see how far the rabbit hole really goes!