Who Is Right about the Right to Bear Arms?

Stanford (Alumni Magazine) ^ | March/April 2006 | Stanford Magazine

[King Prout]

*grins*

[King Prout]

it... keeps... growing...

[Shadow9339]

I'm not as learned as the rest of the forum here, but this is my take on the 2nd amendment...I am a retiree and served in 2 armed conflicts...I say "your welcome" to all because without the US fighting man laying his life on the line for undeniable freedoms, this would be a moot point in 1776.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not constitutional in nature, but a right that ensures the citizens because it existed before the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd Amendment exists to restrict the Congress from infringing this right.

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 591-592 (1875)

[Shadow9339]

The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not constitutional in nature, but a right that ensures the citizens because it existed before the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd Amendment exists to restrict the Congress from infringing this right.

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 591-592 (1875)

[Busywhiskers]

"Some 220 years later, legal scholars are still trying to figure it out."

Actually there was no problem understanding it for about 170 years and then some dipstick got the bright idea that maybe this was a "collective" right not an individual one.

[TChris]

You know, it's really not that difficult.

It's only difficult, really difficult, to try and make it mean something other than what it says when you don't like it.

[Little Ray]

Actually, if'n ya reads the Federalist Papers, the intentions of founders are crystal clear.
Unfortunately, academics are utter morons. Or enemies of freedom and the nation.

[tpaine]

"-- The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not constitutional in nature, but a right that ensures the citizens because it existed before the Constitution.
Instead, the 2nd Amendment exists to restrict the Congress from infringing this right. --"
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 591-592 (1875)

Cruikshank tried to make the point that ONLY congress was restricted, -- and that States were free to ignore our right to keep and bear arms.

-- Not so. States are required to honor the US Constitution & all it's Amendments as the Law of the Land.

[EdReform]

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can.

Join the NRA: www.nra.org

[1Old Pro]

You know, it's really not that difficult.

I agree, it's clear, the right to own and bear arms should not be infringed. I maintain that means ALL "arms", even sawed off shotguns and bazookas until and unless the constitution is amended to restrict certain arms.

[Shadow9339]

I appreciate the additional information, not as well versed nor educated as most seem to be on this forum...I went to the school of hard knocks in NYC. I can't spell KAT, but I can put one in the 10 ring at 800 meters...