I believe we are born with the rights listed in our Constitution and it’s amendments. Govt. does not give us those rights but is created to protect us from losing those rights. Govt now is the largest threat to take from us the rights we are born with. Rights promised to us by our Constitution and sworn to be upheld by the employees of the citizens who by their vote place them into power, those being our elected leadership.

If we are not born with the rights and powers stated in our Constitution, and if our Constitution is not obeyed, then who will protect our liberty from those in power who think they know what is best for us? It is therefore, the duty of the voter to ensure those elected obey the oath of office they have taken by removing them from office when they fail. That’s why we have elections every two years. November 2010 will be that time to remove the failures to keep their oath.

The second amendment to the U.S.Constitution clearly referred to states’ rights against the federal government, not individual rights. The secons aendment refers to ‘People’, not individuals and denotes the importance of a militia, which were constituted by the states, not by individuals. The right-wing ‘judicial activists’ who temporarily constitute a 5/4 majority have ignored the words and intent of the Founding Fathers to arbitrarily justify a personal right to weapons. But the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ does not mean that every individual has the right to own and carry any weapon he or chooses in all circumstances. No own need or has a right to semi-automatic or autoatic assault rifles any more than they have a need or right to bombs and incendiary devices. To argue that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms of any variety under any circumstances is just absurd and is inconsistent with the Founding Fathers clear directive to maintain public order. I suppose browns believes a suicide bomber has a right to carry his bomb until he blows hiself up with his innocent victims. It is the rule of law that is our best protection, not crackpots with semi-automatic assault weapons imposing their undemocratic ‘personal nullification’ of the laws and elected officials they don’t like at the point of the barrel of their gun. That is the public order and the authority of constituted militias that the Founding Fathers had in mind. Hopefully, President Obama will be able to appoint a fifth justice to the Supreme Court who will return the majority to the conservative, common-sense interpretation of a ’strict constructionist’ approach that has been the case until the Roberts court imposed its radical interpretation.

It is a Constitutional safe guard given to the people in the 2nd amendment, for our protection against a run away government. So, we should NEVER give up that right to the governments control.

Well, focus on what the Second Amendment actually says, rather than what you would like it to say:
‘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.’
If the Founding Fathers had meant that each person had the right to keep and bear arms, they could have said that. The clearly refer to a ‘well-regulated militia’, which they place first, and the ’security of a free state’, which they place second and basically mean that it is the state regulating its own militia. The right of the people, in general, comes third. The context of the 1790s when this was written and passed was to protect the state interests with the state militia against a federal government with a national army.

You can see the direct contrast with the provision in the Maine State Constitution as amended in the 1960s:
‘Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.’
Needless to say, the second half of this provision itself is never enforced since it violates the federal and state right to free speech. But it clearly indicates what you would want the Second Amendment to say, but the Second Amendment specifically does not say or mean that!

Mr. Sigel, I admire the fact that you are not using the same old “guns are bad/what about the children?” song and dance we hear from most gun control folks. I could not, however, dasagree more with what you are saying.

As hard as you are working to break down the individual words and historical context of the amendment, you are missing the big picture. We can not be 100% sure about exactly what the founders meant when they wrote the words “militia” and “free state”. Were they talking about National Guard type units defending the seat of state government from a Federal attack? (makes for an interesting Civil War discussion) Or were they refering to the ability of ordinary citizens to maintain a level of readiness so in case of foerign invasion they could be called up to defend “the state”. (Like the Swiss, who require most adult males to have an automatic rifle in the home). Maybee a little bit of both, we can’t be sure.
“the right of the people to keem and bear arms, shal not be infringed”. That last part seems fairly clear doesn’t it? However you decide to interpret the first two phrases, that one brings us to the Court’s opinion that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the individual. If it refered only to the rights of the States, why would it exist? Why wouldn’t they have written that into the Tenth Amendment, where they covered the rights of the “States”?
I may not agree with you Mr. Sigel, but you’re a smart person and I enjoy reading your posts. I look forward to reading more from you in the future.

A well-regulated militia at the time the constitution was signed was the people, not a national guard that didn’t exist. It’s as simple as that. Without individual citizens owning firearms, there is no militia, as they are referring to the band of patriots that won our freedom in the first place. Keeping that strength as one of America’s cornerstones was the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and a huge deterrent to foreign invasion.

All studies show that having a gun in one’s home increases the likelihood that someone in that home will be injured by that gun. I have some friends who hunt who lock their guns very responsibly. But the only member of my family who has been murdered was shot with a gun in her own home.

In addition, I live in the Northeast–crowded with many people. It seems good common sense that the rules for carrying guns should be different for cities, places where alcohol is sold, and sanctuaries (churches et al).

So if I have no gun in my home, my chances of being injured by that gun in my home are 0? If I have a gun in my home my chances of bieng injured by that gun are 0.00001%? Can’t argue with the numbers. Cars, doctors, Perscription drugs, and even furniture and lawn mowers cause between 4 and 100 times more accidental deaths and injuries each year in the U.S. than guns. No one seems to want to ban those dangerous things.

Last year about 650 guns were involved in an accident that killed someone in the home. About 269,999,350 guns, were not.

Dan, how are the people well regulated? Your concept of the people having guns is NOT a well regulated militia. And why mention the security of a free state? It was the states that the Founding Fathers were interested in protecting in this amendment.
Also, note that this amendment does NOT say anything about guns. It says arms. So by your reading, don’t individuals have the right to keep and bear bombs andhowitzers and nuclear devices? By your reading, doesn’t an individual have a right to wear a suicide bob jacket up until the point that individual sets it off? I would say NO. That is NOT what the snd amendment guarantees. And the state has the right to regulate the arms for security reasons. And the state and federal governments have the right to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms by the people in general. Gun control is clearly legal and appropriate.

When the Constitution was written “state” meant “sovereign nation” and the USA was a voluntary association of sovereign nations.

Sigh. Mr. Sigel, the term “well regulated” is a term of art; at the time “well regulated” meant a firearm that was sighted in and adjusted. The term also occurred at the time when a firearm was referred to as a “regulated gun.” The term had nothing at all to do with any government rules, laws, or regulations.

In any event, since at least 1928 the Supreme Court has extended the Bill of Rights to the states and in such a case, the individual right must be respected by the states as well. No argument can be made against extending the Second Amendment that cannot be made against any other portion of the Bill of Rights with equal efficacy.

BTW, the writings of the founders themselves suggest that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not endowed by the state, but by the Creator.

I wish more people took history at some time during their educational careers; it would mean that I could spend far less time educating people on the basics of the American Republic, not to mention the history of England, the Middle East, etc.