Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

FBI Report: Gun Ownership Is Up, Violent Crime Is Down

September 20, 2010 by  

FBI report: Gun ownership is up, violent crime is downPolitical debate over hot-button issues has escalated as the midterm elections draw near, and a candidate's position on gun control can go a long way in deciding his or her fate in November.

Opponents of gun control legislation have new fodder in their efforts to uphold the Second Amendment following the FBI's report that violent crime in the United States has declined for the third straight year. The bureau revealed that, despite rising trends in gun sales and more citizens carrying firearms for personal protection, crime rates are down across the board.

Incidents of murder dropped approximately 7 percent from 2008 to 2009, while robberies fell 8 percent and aggravated assault dropped by 4 percent.

"[The gun ban lobby's] predictions that America's streets would run red have been shown up as a fraudulent sales pitch for public disarmament," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Proponents of the Second Amendment scored a major victory in June when the Supreme Court affirmed the fundamental right to bear arms, The Washington Post reported. The ruling, however, did not strike down any existing gun control laws or specify what kind of laws would violate the Constitution.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “FBI Report: Gun Ownership Is Up, Violent Crime Is Down”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    It works for me. A weapon gives citizens an edge. A dog, in addition to a gun, gives citizens even more of an edge. Anything that keeps criminals off balance (and politicians looking over their shoulders) is something that Americans deserve, and NO amount of debate or persuasion will ever change that.

    • JeffH

      s c, works for me too.

    • pennsyltuckian

      So true. Nothing like a noisy dog in the middle of the night saying ‘Get the Glock, we got a thief in the house’

    • independant thinker

      Well said s c. I have big dogs outside and an ankle biter inside as early warning. The ankle biter has such a high pitched irritating bark its guarenteed to wake you up. If all that noise doesn’t deter them I have a 45 that will definately stop them.

    • 45caliber

      All I ask of a good dog is a bark to let me know someone is there. I’ll take it from there.

    • http://liberty david colon

      I second that!!!!

    • Paul

      I like your reply. I had house break ins 4 years in a row. Lost the insurance to a high risk pole. I got 2 Pit Bulls and put signs on all accesses to the home. Guesssss what no more break ins when you say that they have full access to the house and haven’t been fed, enter at your own risk. They also guard the safe holding the firearms. The company I work for in the Logistics business has 7 drivers who have the right to carry permits and they do carry daily with no problems from the company.

      Look at the down under and England…! We the people under the Constitution do have the right to keep and bear arms providing we meet the proper High standard of background checks.

      • Ronald D. Morley

        While I agree that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms I vehemently disagree with the idea that one should be required to pass a government-controlled background check prior to being able to exercise that right. The idea that we should have to go hat in hand to some agent of the the state and say, “Please Sir, let me carry (or own) a gun” would be anathema to the Founding Fathers and should be the same for Americans today. It is unfortunate that so many people have gotten so used to seeking the permission of some government employee before exercising their inherent rights. This complacency and willingness to obey the whims of those who would rule us is showing signs of erosion and I hope that the elections in November see the vast majority of incumbents of both parties defeated. Americans need to begin to be more active in opposing the growth of government power and intrusiveness. That process is beginning. I hope that it is not too late.

  • JeffH

    So many of us “in the know” have been saying this very thing for over a year now.
    Simple math…more (legal gun ownership) = less (violent crimes)…

    Now everbody repeat it out loud…

  • Viktor Leben

    I’m afraid ! In this big asylum called the “USA” more of the “mental patients” are carrying lethal weapons.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m a lifetime member of the NRA ! It’s just that when I’m in a parking lot, or a shopping mall, I see them women carrying bags and know they are armed ! I’m a ugly scary looking fellow (my wife can’t see that good – God Bless her !!) and a fat ‘tard also . But on the flip side I’m really a wimp.

    I give them women allot of space when I’m walking to my car, or just walking in the mall! I don’t want to get shot !

    Can anyone here spare 10 grand so I can get a face lift ?

    • http://yahoo Upsidedownjack

      The only reason to be afraid is because “your” one of the Miscreant’s that worry about getting Shot doing something YOU should be shot for anyway! Change your life stile and you will not have a reason to feel “WORRIED”! Or Carry a “gun” and get shot being stuped!

      • Viktor Leben

        THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT ! HA HA !

    • 45caliber

      I don’t have a bit of problem with people carrying, concealed or openly. The more people carrying, the less criminals want to challenge.

      Actually, I feel that if you want to get rid of all but the “white collar” crime everyone should carry all the time.

      • dan az

        45
        It works here!It seems as though crime is less since the passage of the right to carry concealed buy jan brewer.did you say you where from here?

        • 45caliber

          dan az:

          I’ve lived in AZ as a boy – but I live in Texas now.

    • http://yahoo Dave

      Viktor,
      Just curious. Why are you a lifetime mender of the N.R.A. if you don’t own and have never shot a gun?

      • Viktor Leben

        Dave,

        The NRA politically battles for the 2nd amendment. Even though I don’t own a firearm today doesn’t mean I won’t need one tomorrow !!

        Plus the hot looking conservative women dig a NRA guy ! Ha HA ! Just joking a little bit … they do, right ?

  • Uncle Buck

    I betcha the Brady Campaign and the Bloomberg type groups will never let facts get in the way of their arguements.

    • Robert Smith

      Uncle Buck brought up the Brady Campaign.

      That’s an amazing case. James was a staunch Republican. Something about getting shot in the head seems to have changed his mind. But, in fact it was the medical oddity of him getting shot in the head but it was Sarah, his wife, who suffered the brain damage.

      They were going to let Hinkley out and tell him that Barny Frank was dating Jodie Foster. For some reason that plan didn’t work.

      Rob

  • J.M.R.

    ITS REALLY FUNNY HOW WE THE PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN THE SCUM IN D.C. AND YES I’M A MEMBER OF THE NRA BUT I’M NOT PROUD OF THEM AS THEY ARE STILL SENDING RIED MONEY, BUT THE LAST I HEARD NONE TO THE CHALLENGER.

    • Bob

      The NRA has been hijacked by the same Neocons that stole the Tea Party. Sarah Palin, Gingrich, Beck, Hannity, Oliver North. Don’t waste your dues on these slime.

      • Brian

        It is unfortunate that just because one expresses a point of view different than yours Bob you are so quick to condem. The likes of Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity or any you speak so poorly of should make you realize that Freedom of Speech is one of the greatest freedoms we cherish in our great nation. The 2nd Amendment, is one that allows us to keep and maintain our weapons. Not one of those you mention want to take that Right away. Think, those who do not respect the 2nd Amendment and want to pick and choose which amendments they want to have, are the ones you should focus your anger on. Those are the very people who seek to limit your full freedoms our great constitution provids for, so re-think your comment and support both the 2nd Amendment and those who have a voice to help keep our freedom.
        Retired US Army, Vietman Combat Medic.

    • Carolina Mom

      You need to read the most recent issue of the NRA’s monthly magazine.. America’s 1st Freedom. There is an article from Chris Cox the NRA’s legislative action director. It has the facts of that whole situation and the NRA’s reasoning… I’m not saying that you need to agree with everything they do, but it would help us all to stay informed of the facts and not the rumors…..They are NOT sending $$$ to Harry Reid.

  • Larry Kennedy

    lets see armed or not not even a question in my book I think that the thought that someone is carrying a concealed weapon makes a wood be thug think twice befor plying his trade on unsuspecting folks mr. leben even says he gives them a wide birth and it’s for sure that he doe’s not know if there armed or not and the streets are not running red are they

    • Viktor Leben

      You’re right about that Larry ! I practice the very ancient martial art of Run Foo ! (RUN FOOL !!!) ….

      You wonder, as liberals/conservatives are arming themselves (i.e. concealed carry) when your going to be a target. Everyone has a bad day sooner or later. One day your tolerant of other people (you’ve been taking your medication) and then the next day your shooting Viktor in the ass but were aiming for his face (i.e. you didn’t take your meds and you couldn’t tell the difference.).

      I’m all for the 2nd Ammendment .. I don’t think I’ll ever own a gun though. I never shot a firearm in my life, but the wife has !.

      I give her allot of space too !!

      • Carolina Mom

        Well, fool, if that’s all you can do, then that’s what you should do… but leave my constitutional rights alone!

        • J.C.

          Remember Carolina, God gives you the right to protect yourself, with a gun, bat, spoon…The Constitution states it most plainly. Just ask yourself what to choose in a gun-fight.

        • Viktor Leben

          Carolina Mom,

          Then we are in agreement. I’ll practice Run Foo – and you can buy all the weapons you want ….

          Done ! God Bless You ..

          • Jana

            Viktor,
            The only problem with running is there is always someone that can run faster. Another problem with running is you can’t outrun a bullet, or a knife being thrown, and a man with a knife usually knows how to throw one.

            I am not a pascifist like you are, I will do whatever it takes and once an attacker is down I will continue to do as much damage to his/her body to keep em down as I can. Stomp on thier hands and break them, whatever! I figure I will have one shot at it so I will go for broke. They will have a very long time to think of their dastardly deeds while recovering if they recover.
            Hurt me or my family? NO WAY.
            By the way, hot chicks like a REAL MAN not a coward.

        • Cameron

          The most dangerous animal in the world is a mother (human, bear, dog, doesn’t matter) who is fearful of her loved ones getting hurt. I’m all for decent mothers to be fully armed & trained. They’re born with the mindset to use deadly force if necessary. You go, girl!

  • TIME

    WOW, who would have ever thought this could be the cause and effect, more guns in the hands of people who abide by the laws, equals less crime.
    Oh I know Hillery Clinton, Barry Soetoro, Chris Dodd, Joe Liberman, John Kerry, Da Waxman, De Weinner, Maxie Waters, Nancy PigOsee Harry Reid, who all still think that slaves should have nothing but a stick to defend themselfs with.
    Let alone that we are all criminals just for breathing air in their minds so we really should be killed by more agressive criminals who help keep down the population.

    • 45caliber

      The liberals believe that all men are good until proven otherwise. Therefore any person who might like to defend themselves by owning a gun are actually potential murderers who simply want to kill someone, preferably legally. The same for anyone who joins the military. They then believe that all vets and gun owners should be watched, deprived of their ability to kill others, and if possible placed in confinement due to having a mental flaw.

      What they fail to realize is that these people are smart enough to know that any failure to defend themselves or their country will result in a loss of freedom. If anyone has a mental flaw, it is the liberals.

      • Robert Smith

        Hey 45… Rob here!

        Gun rights isn’t a “left” or “right” issue. I’m pro-choice on firearms.

        Your generalizing sure doesn’t look very smart to me.

        Rob

        • s c

          So, you’re ‘generalizing’ again, RS. Some people will gloss over your half-hearted, “pro-choice” comment on weapons. What you mean (and won’t admit) is that you don’t want to take a stand on the topic. You’re trying to preach to the wrong audience again.
          How did you go through the motions of growing up and stay so far away from having standards? No gold star
          for you. No cigar, and you’re not even close to being a conservative. Herr Obummer may be proud of you. I’m not.

          • Robert Smith

            From s c: >>> What you mean (and won’t admit) is that you don’t want to take a stand on the topic<<<

            I've taken a stand. Each and every American should make a choice about what kind of firearm (or not) they might want to use to eliminate the threat of a bad guy.

            Why are you misrepresentin me? Ohhhhhh, I get it! Reality doesn't fit with your bigoted point of view.

            Rob

        • 45caliber

          Some Democrats are pro-gun. Even some Democrat Congressmen are. But that doesn’t change what I said when you lump all liberals together. The majority opinion is as I wrote it.

          • Robert Smith

            And I’m pro-choice on firearms.

            Rob

  • Dancingcop

    And Yamamoto declared that an invasion of the American mainland would be disasterous because behind every tree there would be a gun pointed at them. Maybe our democrats want a successful invasion of our country. Im just sayin!

  • http://YAHOO ED FOUTS

    I HAVE OWNED GUNS ALL MY LIFE AND NOBODY WILL TAKE THEM,
    THE 2ND AMENDMENT GIVES ME THE RIGHTS TO PROTECT MY FREEDOMS,FAMILY, HOME AGAINST ANY FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC CRIMINAL THUGS,AND WE HAVE A LOT OF THEM HERE IN OUR COUNTRY NOW.WE MUST VOTE THEM OUT OR ELSE,
    THEY KNOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ARMED TO THE TEETH,THATS WHY THE
    JAPANESE DID NOT INVADE OUR LAND IN WW11,THEY SAID IT WOULD BE SUICIDE BECAUSE THEIR WOULD BE A GUN BEHIND EVERY BLADE OF GRASS.
    BE READY TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND YOUR FREEDOMS,LIVE FREE OR
    DIE FIGHTING THEM.

    • 45caliber

      Kruschev (can’t spell it) was President of USSR when Kennedy was in office. His son a few years ago was asked if USSR had ever considered invading the US. He said it was discussed by his father and allies but was decided that it would fail since “every American” owned a gun. They would be attacked by more than any US army if they tried.

      • http://liberty david colon

        I would never live in a country, where you did not have the right to keep a weapon in your home to protect you and your family, and to think, the Democrats would love to take away our gun rights….

        • Robert Smith

          From david colon: >>>Democrats would love to take away our gun rights….<<<

          False.

          Rob

          • larryh

            Diane Fienstein-If I had my way I would say turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. American citizen.
            Now is not the time to push for more gun control-I will know when the time is right,and will push for morwe gun control then.

            These are comments the Senator made.
            Isn’t mayor for life Bloomberg a Democrat? Hillary Clinton?
            The majority of Dems are for more gun control.

      • William Gun Owner

        45Cal.,
        What is the source for the quote from Kruschev’s son? (I also don’t know the correct spelling).
        It would be good to get that source solidly identified because the logic behind it is virtually the same as was argued in the Federalist Papers when they discussed the authority granted to congress to raise an army. In response to the argument that an army might be used by tyrants to subjugate the people, Hamilton/Madison/Jay asserted that it would not be possible in a land full of armed citizens intent on defending themselves and their rights.
        It would be nice to have an solidly documented example of our gun rights protecting us from foreign interference in exactly the way the founders said it would protect us from internal tyranny.

    • J.C.

      Remember Ed, God gives you the right to protect yourself, with a gun, bat, spoon…NOT The Constitution , it just states it clearly. Believe and ask for Gods help should you get in a fight. The police are just there to take pictures afterwards.

      • http://liberty david colon

        AMEN!!!

    • Robert Smith

      ED FOUTS says: >>>JAPANESE DID NOT INVADE OUR LAND IN WW11,THEY SAID IT WOULD BE SUICIDE BECAUSE THEIR WOULD BE A GUN BEHIND EVERY BLADE OF GRASS.<<<

      In fact it worked out that way for the invasion of Japan. Very high casualties were expected because the people were ready to defend their land.

      We faught a nuclear war with them and we won. It's that simple looking back at it. If they or the Germans had split the atom for a bomb first we wouldn't be speaking English today.

      Rob

  • Robert Smith

    Things work better when dealing with facts. Joe Leiberman isn’t a gun grabbing nut case like some others around.

    Q of Joe Leiberman: In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore had a proposal for the licensing of all new handguns bought by gun owners. Anyone who wanted to buy a new handgun had to get licensed. Will you support that proposal in this campaign?

    LIEBERMAN: I do not support that proposal. I have never supported such a proposal.

    Q: But you were part of the ticket.

    LIEBERMAN: Gore came out with that position before I came on to the ticket. The issue never really came up. Al Gore said to me when I got on the ticket, “Don’t change anything about yourself, that’s why I chose you.”

    American citizens have a right to own firearms. It is no more unlimited than any other right that we have. The laws that we pass ought to concentrate on stopping criminals and children and others who shouldn’t have guns from getting them. Licensing, registration, in my opinion are bad ideas and violations of that fundamental right.

    Source: Democratic Debate in Columbia SC May 3, 2003

    • sylviam

      I have carried a weapon for 50yrs. I have never shot anyone or even thought I would find it nessessary, but I did. The mere sound of my weapon being cocked was *enough* to deter the aggressor, THANK GOD, But the 2nd AMENDMENT did not give me that right GOD DID, THE 2ND AMENDMENT just RE-affirms it. LIFE TIME MEMBER OF NRA. Yes, FEMALE yes, 70yr old YES. Please get our message out to everyone READ THE CONSTITUTION its plain straight talk on rights that it gives.
      Then READ the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE, it gives you THE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, wich NO MAN CAN TAKE AWAY.
      GOD BLESS AMERICA

      • Robert Smith

        From sylviam: >>>But the 2nd AMENDMENT did not give me that right GOD DID<<<

        Guess atheists are lucky the Constitution gave THEM the right to carry.

        And, I'll bet Wiccans are glad their Goddess gave them the right.

        Rob

      • independant thinker

        ]

        Lieberman received an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association and a 90% from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.[48]

        I believe the above says enough about Leibermans position on gun control.

    • Cameron

      Everybody needs to be working hard to keep Sec of State Clinton from get the US onboard w/the international, global gun ban treaty. notify your Senator, NOW.

      • Robert Smith

        Hi Cameron…

        Don’t worry. The treaty is to deal with arms dealers, not individual rights in America.

        Rob

        • independant thinker

          every proposed draft of the treaty so far has been written in a way that it could apply to private ownership of firearms.

          • Robert Smith

            Do you have any examples of that or is it just vaporware making the rounds and rounds of those who just make right turns?

            Rob

        • larryh

          The UN small arms treaty is NOT just about arms dealers-it also has sections dealing with making firearms ownership for private citizens heavily restricted,or just illegal.
          Read the UN proposals on other issues,they try to put gun bans in them too,like their rights of the child programme-gun control in that one too.

        • helen

          RS– what you’re saying is BS! I quote: “Don’t worry. The treaty is to deal with arms dealers, not individual rights in America.” Do you realize how foolish you sound? For someone who has nothing to say, you sure take a long time to do it.
          Consider what ‘independant thinker’ says: “every proposed draft of the treaty so far has been written in a way that it could apply to private ownership of firearms.”
          Then read the ‘larry h’ excellent post again; it says: “The UN small arms treaty is NOT just about arms dealers-it also has sections dealing with making firearms ownership for private citizens heavily restricted,or just illegal.
          “Read the UN proposals on other issues,they try to put gun bans in them too,like their rights of the child programme-gun control in that one too.”
          RS, I’m a nice NRA Lady; I’ll try to make it easy for you.
          Click here: UN Small Arms Treaty Kills Gun Rights | Fellowship of the Minds

  • Arkie

    The Obama administration along with Hiliary Clinton have made up their minds they are going to disarm us one way or another. If they can not do it through attacks on the second amendment then they will do it by banning ammunition and/or through treaties with the United Nations.

    • Robert Smith

      From Arkie: >>>The Obama administration ..<<<

      Thus far has agreed with the Bush administration in the only gun issue to come up in national parks. Please deal with facts, and the fact is that the Obama administration has yet to restrict any gun rights in America.

      Rob

      • independant thinker

        You need to get your facts straight. The Obama adminstration put a stop to the implimentation of the relaxed carry rules Congress then attached an amendment putting the proposed carry rules in effect to the credit reform bill which Obama wanted worse than he wanted a fight over the amendment. Obama stated after he was elected president “I am not seeking any new gun control laws at this time because I do not have the votes to guarentee their passage”.

        • Robert Smith

          >>>Congress then attached an amendment <<<

          REALLY! A democratic congress overruled a democratic president to keep a Bush carry law on the books…

          Interesting stratigy to blow the notion that everyone is anti-gun.

          Rob

      • Dale

        Obama signs a executive order banning almost One Million American Made Rifles from reaching the USA soil:

        http://nagr.org/M1garand.aspx?pid=1

  • http://MSA Kirby

    the guns to protect us from the scum in DC that ruing the country.

    A quote from back in the 1840′s “The constitution will hang by a thread” and another one, “the country will be destroyed from within”
    Isn’t this whats happening to the country right now..LETS GET RID OF ALL THE SCUM IN WASHINGTON THATS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY NOW.

  • third party

    THE most important part of the constitution is the second amendment ,without that,there are no others.NOTE: YOU NEED TO JOIN OTHER SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT GROUPS,THE NRA IS JUST A FRONT WORKING FOR THE TWO PARTY PARADIGM,THEY ARE SCOUNDRELS, AS WELL AS MOST OF D.C. LOBBYIST.

  • James

    The phrase “proponents of the Second Amendment” is misleading here. It simply means those who agree with the amendment’s restriction on Congress to refrain from infringing on the right to bear arms. Mr. Gottlieb’s Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is more appropriate.

    In the original Constitution (1789), the powers which were delegated to Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8) made no mention of rights, and about half of the Founders believed that that would suffice to prevent the new federal government from legislating over rights. However, others thought future congresses might misconstrue their powers, to include rights, and insisted upon adding a Bill of Rights (in 1791). The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads (bold added):

    “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

    Thus the stated purpose for the Bill of Rights was “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” by adding “restrictive clauses” with respect to rights. They start with “Congress shall make no law respecting…or prohibiting…or abridging” the five rights mentioned therein, then the Second Amendment reads:

    “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.”

    It doesn’t say ‘the people shall hereby have the right,’ it just says: “the right…shall not be infringed.” Viewing that amendment separately has led many to misconstrue its “shall not be infringed” as applying to state legislatures as well as Congress.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said: “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.” After meticulous analysis of every word and clause in the amendment, the Heller Court stated: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” (This has also been misunderstood to have application to state laws that infringe on the right.)
    However, that decision only involved an ordinance of a territory that fell under federal jurisdiction (Congress, almost immediately, altered the D.C. ordinance to comply with that decision). The precedents the Court relied on are as follows:

    In Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: “The [U.S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.” (Bold added.)
    In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), a mob of whites had disarmed two blacks (in Louisiana) and the issue was whether that action had violated the so-called Second Amendment right of blacks. Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government” [bold added]. (The Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.)
    In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), Mr. Presser claimed that an Illinois Military Code provision (requiring state permits for parades, which he had ignored) was a violation of the U.S. Constitution and his Second Amendment right. As to the latter, the High Court said: “A conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state” [bold added]. (The Court cited Cruikshank as authority.)
    In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 537-8 (1894), Mr. Miller was indicted and convicted for murder in Dallas County, Texas, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had affirmed the conviction. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the issue was whether Miller’s Writ of Error was valid – not his guilt or innocence. The Court said: “We think there is no federal question properly presented by the record in this case, and that the writ of error must be dismissed upon that ground.” Then concerning Miller’s contention that a Texas gun-law had violated the Second and Fourth Amendments, the Court said: “We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of these provisions, and even if it were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts” [bold added]. (The Court cited Cruikshank, and 5 other federal cases as authority.)

    Then, 114 years later, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the Court cited and quoted Cruikshank, and reaffirmed all the above (in footnote 23):

    “With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government [Bold added].”

    This unbroken series of High Court decisions clearly state that the Bill of Rights’ restrictions (which certainly include the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed”) apply exclusively to the federal government. (The Court’s ‘incorporation’ comment has confused many. However it just said that up to that time the right to bear arms had not been protected, through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, against any state law.)

    At the appellate level, in the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals area, we have Bach v. Pataki (2005), where Mr. Bach had argued that a New York state law violated the Second Amendment, and the Court said: “We hold that the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ does not apply against the States and affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Bach’s Second Amendment claim” [this was 3 years before Heller].
    And Maloney v. Cuomo, (2009), where whether nunchaku sticks were protected by the Second Amendment was considered, and the Court said: “It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on the right” [bold added]. (The Court cited Presser, Bach and Heller as authority, which demonstrates that the lower federal courts followed those High Court precedents, including Heller, precisely.

    In Nordyke v. King, (2009) the 9th Circuit considered the 14th Amendment approach. In California, an Alameda County ordinance had prohibited any further gun-shows at their fairground. Mr. And Mrs. Nordyke had organized and sponsored these shows at that fairground (and other fairgrounds in the west) for years. They filed suit in federal District Court, claiming that this ordinance violated their civil rights, lost there, and lost again when the 9th Circuit affirmed.
    The District Court said: “There are three doctrinal ways the Second Amendment might apply to the states: (1) direct application, (2) incorporation by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or (3) incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the same Amendment.”

    As to ‘direct application’ the Court said: “Supreme Court precedent forecloses the first option. The Bill of Rights directly applies only to the federal government Barron v. Mayor of Balt….(1833)…the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled Barron. [Then]…Therefore, the Second Amendment does not directly apply to the states. See United States v. Cruikshank (1875); see also Presser v. Illinois (1886)…” [Bold added].

    Then: “We are similarly barred from considering incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Clause provides that ‘[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …This language protects only those rights that derive from United States citizenship, but not those general civil rights independent of the Republic’s existence …The former include only rights the Federal Constitution grants or the national government enables, but not those preexisting rights the Bill of Rights merely protects from federal invasion…The Second Amendment protects a right that predates the Constitution; therefore, the Constitution did not grant it. See e.g., Heller, …(‘[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment… codified a pre-existing right.’)” [Italics, by the Court, bold added].

    The Ninth Circuit was thus left with only the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The 9th Circuit reasoned that since the right to bear arms existed before the federal government and was unalienable it certainly must be a part of one’s ‘liberty.’ But since the Alameda County ordinance was valid law, and since the Nordykes had not been deprived of their personal right to arms, they affirmed the District Court and held that the Nordykes had not been deprived of their ‘liberty’ without due process of law.
    The Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the Second Amendment may not be “directly” incorporated in the States (i.e., the ‘shall not be infringed’ cannot be directly applied to a state’s law) is because of the above-quoted High Court precedents (including Heller), which all held that the amendment applies exclusively to the national government.
    The mistake many make is to view the Second Amendment as the right, rather than as the restriction it is. This came about over time by various gun groups always referring to their ‘constitutional’ or ‘Second Amendment’ rights, and ignoring their state constitutions altogether.

    In the recent McDonald v. Chicago case, the High Court did include the unalienable right to bear arms in the “liberty” due process clause of the 14th Amendment, at least as to Illinois state law. Thus, the Bill of Rights does not provide rights. It is just restrictive clauses that apply exclusively to the national government.

    • 45caliber

      And every STATE Constitution that I know about also has a clause forbidding the government from interfering with the right to own arms. So we are still covered.

      • http://GOGGLE vaksal

        45 caliber,the gun laws in california are unconstitutional,to the point of come jan.2011,no more internet ammo purchases and any ammo a person buys from out of state,if bought locally, the police where you live will have a copy of that purchase,as a permanet record,guess what,its back door gun registation,so when the thugs in government yell,disarm everyone,these left wing liberal communist neo-coms,can overthrow this republic quickly,just like adolf hitler and joseph stalin did,history repeats itself,but on the other hand look what happened here with the british army and in france when those fools got the normal person angry,well no place to run,the point is that the california folks have been duped by those elected employees in office,and it will get a lot worst soon.then only the murderous criminals will have guns and law enforcement that is only a phone call away,10min.20min.30min.?who knows we might just get noone,but an answering machine,this station has been closed due to cutbacks,in that case,i guess the only ones that will be left standing will be those that stashed ammo and lots of weapons,and are not left wing communist traitors,that means san francico will be wiped out,on second thought,sounds interesting,sorry i just slipped,you know i really didnt mean it,or did i?

    • law man

      dude,you have not a clue,your own first sentence,you tell us what it means,your funny,”THE RIGHT”DEFINITION IS freedom to,freedom of,FREEDOM being free to part take in,

      • James

        Law man, I should have been more clear. The statement “Proponents of the Second Amendment scored a major victory…etc.,” would only make sense if the Court had declared a federal law unconstitutional. It didn’t. It declared a state law had violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. No state law has ever been held violative of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment isn’t the right, the right to bear arms is unalienable, it isn’t dependent on the U.S. Constitution for its existence. Did that clear it up?

    • Harvey B.

      Jimmie boy–you can search and quote all the jurisprudence you want and never establish or destroy the “right to keep and bear arms”.

      It is a natural right given to you by God (as part of your right to life) that is anticedent to the constitution.
      You cannot give it away, legislate it away, regulate it away, or treaty it away by either the state or federal gov’ts.

      You have the right and duty to defend yourself against anyone who would like to take away that right (and all your other God given rights)including individuals and governments both domestic and foreign.

  • seeker1-1

    Like he said lets get the clowns out of the white house and clean it up real good they are runing this country like there on xanax …i dont think they will try to take are gun becaues they know it will caues a civil war

  • Rick

    I got my concealed carry permit as soon as the “O” regime was elected.
    I will not give it up under any circumstance, any small arms treaty or world
    law.

    • helen

      Rick, my Lad— I went you one better–
      I quote: “I got my concealed carry permit as soon as the “O” regime was elected. I will not give it up under any circumstance, any small arms treaty or world law.”
      I, too, saw the writing on the wall.. I bought stock in the two leading companies that provide this bantied about protection. h

  • Willis Stuckey

    Let’s face it Obama and his cronies are just worried about being shot by one or more of their betrayed citizens. I can understand their fear, but, all they have to do is give the government back to the people. Is that so hard? For the people,………

    • s c

      Willis, for now I’ll assume that you’re 30 years old or younger. At some point, you’ll realize that politicians are NOT to be trusted. Career politicians are ABSOLUTELY N O T to be trusted.
      Power, to a career politician, is more addictive than any drug. Being in Washington is like living in a drug warehouse.
      Now, answer your own question, Willis. Do you think American career politicians will EVER ‘see the light’ or do the right thing?

    • 45caliber

      Every anti-gun person in Washington that I know about with the possible exception on Schumer carries a gun or has round-the-clock body guards. Sen. Feinstein was once asked if she was giving up her gun (she carries) if she was successful in banning guns.

      Her reply? “I have to keep my gun! There are people out there who hate me.”

      • independant thinker

        If I remember correctly at one time Feinstein made a big show about turning in a pistol to the police to show support for more gun control. What she did not do was tell people about the carry pistol she had she just gave the impression she was going gunless.

      • Cameron

        Isn’t she the one who had a permit (unavailable to us “common folk”) to carry a LOADED S&W .38 in the halls of Congress? And didn’t the late Sen. Kennedy have bodyguards armed w/fully automatic, concealed, submachine guns? Don’t Rosie O’Donnel’s personal bodyguards carry guns on school grounds when they take her ADOPTED “children” to school? We’re all fools! If WE were Liberals, too, then WE could do all that. IN OUR DREAMS.

        • Dale

          Absolute Protection Service, and guards, used for the celebrity, on occasion. Known for working in Beverly Hills when O’Donnel shows for events. Don’t know about school areas. These guys do appear as professions and know how to handle situations, paparazzi.

      • dan az

        45
        shummer shot a guy in his house and even then no one was to carry a gun in the big apple. It happened about the time he put up that sign showing how many people were getting killed by guns then latter had to take it down. Remember?

    • Robert Smith

      From Willis Stuckey: >>>Let’s face it Obama and his cronies are just worried about being shot by one or more of their betrayed citizens.<<<

      Actually in the ONLY gun issue that the President has addressed thus far he AGREED with the Bush policy about firearms in National parks.

      Seems to me that the hysteria about Obama and gun control is misplaced.

      Rob

      • independant thinker

        You need to get your facts straight. The Obama adminstration put a stop to the implimentation of the relaxed carry rules Congress then attached an amendment putting the proposed carry rules in effect to the credit reform bill which Obama wanted worse than he wanted a fight over the amendment. Obama stated after he was elected president “I am not seeking any new gun control laws at this time because I do not have the votes to guarentee their passage”.

    • Robert Smith

      From Willis Stuckey: >>>Let’s face it Obama and his cronies>>>

      Obama hasn’t restricted any gun rights. Please look at the facts.

      Rob

      • JeffH

        Robert Smith, the FACTS are that Obama’s voting record on anti-gun issues is 100% for – 0% against. He never saw a pro-gun issue that he supported as a senator.
        His record is the threat to the pro gun advocates and the 2nd Amendment.

        Prove me wrong if you can.

      • 45caliber

        If he is so pro-gun, why did he just sign an executive order authorizing $130 million to destroy a large number of M-1′s now stored in Korea instead of allowing them to be shipped back here and sold??

        • SnakeShooter17

          Good point, 45 Cal… I just read about that whole ordeal, and can’t understand the point of it. Unless, of course, it’s about that original idea of “he’s afraid of guns.” Some people just have an innate fear about them.

        • JeffH

          45caliber, good call. These Garands are generally destined for the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) and this anti-gun administration has decided to not honor the Feds commitment to the program.

          The federal law enacted in 1996 (Title 36 U. S. Code, 0701-40733) that created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS, the formal legal name of the CMP) mandates these key “functions for the corporation:

          (1) To instruct citizens of the United States in marksmanship;

          (2) To promote practice and safety in the use of firearms;

          (3) To conduct competitions in the use of firearms and to award trophies, prizes, badges, and other insignia to competitors.

          The law specifically states: In carrying out the Civilian Marksmanship Program, the corporation shall give priority to activities that benefit firearms safety, training, and competition for youth and that reach as many youth participants as possible.

  • Mark

    Only the weak will be disarmed. Criminals and strong citizens will remain armed, for different reasons of course. All those folks that voted for the far left extremist candidates will undoubtedly turn in their firearms and instantly become targets for the criminals. An unloaded firearm is as useless as an uncharged fire extinguisher. You gotta be loaded and ready at all times, for whatever evil lerks, foriegn or domestic. Fear the gov’t, that fears your gun.

    • 45caliber

      You are correct. And you can teach a 1-1/2 year old to leave guns alone. I trained all three of mine at that age and never had a problem. All three, now grown, have their own guns and would not get rid of them.

      • Mark

        Yep, I trained my son at a very young age as well. A parent that is willing to parent is rare now days. But you just gotta quench their curiosity. I let my son know that he could ask me a question anytime about the guns, and then we would unload them together, go over the parts, reload them, and when he was old enough to hold on, we fired them. A curious kid, is a dangerous kid. If parents took the time to parent, we wouldn’t have so many numb skulls floated around in the world thinking we owe them something. Way to go .45.

        • independant thinker

          Exactly, Exactly.

        • dan az

          mark
          thats what I did and both of my boys are expert shots at any range!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            dan az,
            both my girls were good shots with rifles at a young age and are becoming fair to good shots with pistol now!!

          • independant thinker

            I taught my daughters at a young age as well. If I could have afforded the training for her my youngest was such a natural with a pistol she would have had a shot at the Olympics.

  • L.J.

    This just goes to show you that when a citizenry is armed, the cowardly criminals prey on those who they KNOW are unarmed. And we have mayors like those bastards Daley in Chicago and Bloomberg in N.Y. fighting tooth, claw and nail not only to restrict, but to deny 2nd amendment rights to law-abiding citizens. What they hell are they thinking about? I only wish Daley would have died the same death his crooked old man did years ago. But getting rid of Daley will NOT stop the corrupt practice embedded in Chicago politics.

    • 45caliber

      Daley is “retiring”. But you can bet he will be picking the next mayor.

  • 45caliber

    Back in the 70′s Readers Digest was anti-gun. They hired a think tank to prove that places that had the most guns had the most crime and places with the least guns had the least crime.

    They found just opposite. RD refused to pay for the study, so the think tank sold the story to the press. RD sued, arguing that the think tank didn’t have ownership of the story to sell; the court ruled that since RD refused to pay for the information the think tank was free to sell it.

    The think tank found that the places with the least guns per person (the inner city areas) had to most crime. The areas with the most guns per person (mostly rural) had the least crime.

    The no. 1 safest spot and most guns? The Ozark Mountains in Arkansas. Hillbilly country, where I grew up. The number of guns per person? 2.5 per person regardless of age. And that was exactly how many guns I had in my family at the time.

    • Cameron

      I’ll bet that 1/2 gun was hell to shoot! Just joking. I grew up around guns & wouldn’t live w/o one now. in fact I have three loaded & ready in my home& one always goes w/me everywhere. It’s amazing that Liberals want to “cure” the teenage sex problem by teaching kindergarteners how to masturbate & giving middleschoolers condoms, but balk at teaching kids how to be safe w/guns. Conservatives are just the opposite. If education works for one problem, it will work for both.

  • Bobnip

    The interesting thing about people that do not want us owning guns is they ignore statistics. In England, where it is illegal to own a handgun, property crimes are five times higher than here in America. An interesting note* Muslims are committing many of the crimes there. (But, that’s another story!)

    When Hitler came into power in Germany the first thing he did was to outlaw private gun ownership. Gee…I wonder why?

    The NRA, to date, has been successful in lobbying Congress to avoid legislation that would take away our individual right to have guns. But, you see, now the “Regime” has gotten the idea they can control our weapons by taking away the ammunition. After all, we don’t want the criminal suffering from lead poisoning when they are burglarizing our house! Right?

    • 45caliber

      The problem with most liberals is that they refuse to see the criminal as a criminal. They consider them to be people who have been failed by society. “They wouldn’t have broken the law if we had just given them what they needed(wanted) to begin with.”

      But a criminal is someone who refuses to obey laws because it profits him to not do so. The failure on society’s part is not making the punishment for breaking of a law sufficient enough to make the criminal realize that breaking a law does not provide profit.

      • Cameron

        BINGO!

      • James

        I agree: “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Exodus 21:12).

      • http://?? Joe H.

        45caliber,
        What make and model was that 1/2 gun?? HeHe!!

        • 45caliber

          .50 of course!

        • JeffH

          Desert Eagle, either .50 mag or .44 mag.

    • Robert Smith

      From Bobnip: >>>The interesting thing about people that do not want us owning guns is they ignore statistics. <<<

      The Kleck report should be required reading for Congress critters.

      Rob

  • S Rubicon

    Now that there are “even more” facts to substantiate personal gun ownership, now that many more Americans are exercising their Second Amendment rights, now that crime levels are receding, can we finally let the Brady Bunch & Bother gun control nuts off at the asylum?
    In the end, the “REAL” threat to our gun rights, is the United Nations. They plan to treaty us out of our guns. I still question if any president or congress has the right or authority to treaty away our inalienable individual rights. Seems to me that no treaty can infringe on those rights w/o our express consent & just getting elected is not a waiver of my personal rights!

    • 45caliber

      I agree most heartily.

      • Bill

        From what I just read on there a little higher up about the constitution and the courts ruled it was the states rights to control your guns. then the Feds. can not stop you as long as the state says you can, if I read that right.

        • James

          Bill, you are confusing the right to bear arms with the 2nd Amendment. That amendment isn’t the right, it is simply a restriction on the federal government. State constitutions restrict the states. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right, that isn’t dependent on any constitution for its existence. That was the gist of those federal cases above.

          • 45caliber

            James,

            That is certainly what the liberals would like you to believe!

          • James

            45 Cal., That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court has always said. It said the Bill of Rights, is restrictions that the States and People placed upon the federal government, and that’s all that it is. Americans seem to be incapable of grasping the concept of an unalienable right, they need to see it written down on a piece of paper. But no state law has ever been held violative of the 2nd Amendment, that alone, should convince one that its restriction applies only to the national government. Many States have infringed on their citizens’ right to bear arms, and many of those laws have been challenged in a federal court as violating the 2nd Amendment. However, every last one of them has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the States. Rights that have been offended, must be defended by the individual, who was harmed, in a State court.

    • Cameron

      That treaty would be un-Constitutional if passed. The Constitution says that all treaties will be the law of the land & binding upon the courts. Unfortunately we have “Justices” on the Supreme Court who would never find that treaty to be un-Constitutional.

  • law man

    s rub,YOU ARE RIGHT,THE ILLEGAL U.N. is trying to make America their new world order,at the tune of 500 million american tax dollars a year,they are a treasonous organization by definition of the constitution.THEY are selling our sovereignty down the drain with the help of both useless party’s.

  • eddie47d

    The lower crime rate goes allot deeper than gun ownership. Mostly it goes to how people think. Are you willing to take another persons life or property? I think the lower crime rate only proves that Americans want to live in a decent society and won’t seek out criminal activity to solve their problems. Another issue that wasn’t brought up is our safety net(unemployment insurance,food stamps,ect.). If people aren’t desperate they don’t take desperate measures (burglary,shoplifting,ect.)Take away the safety net and there could be a whole new story. Then guns might play a more important role.

    • 45caliber

      eddie:
      I won’t take another person’s property – but I am willing to take another person’s life over MY property!

      And the “safety net” as you call it, is a lot of the crime problem. Those on Welfare like not having to work for a living but it doesn’t pay as much as they would like to spend (but then, who does get as much as they would like to spend?).

      If they get a job to acquire more funds, they lose that welfare money. So they have to hide the money they acquire. And the easiest way to acquire that money is to steal it. Most crime is committed by those on Welfare. Another statistic.

      • Cameron

        Nothing I own is worth dying for, but everything I own is worth killing to keep. I earned it & it’s mine. Want to cut down on crime? Do something about people w/too much time on their hands because they’re drawing Federal assistance while being able-bodied. Do something about people getting hooked on drugs & then turning to crime to support their habit. Do something about people who should never be allowed to breed having bastard children & then not rearing them to respect other people & other people’s property. No matter what we do there will always be criminals & the need for personal arms. Read your Bible. When Jesus left this Earth He told His disciples to arm themselves for protection because He wasn’t going to be here to protect them.

        • James

          It’s Luke 22:36: “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” See also Matthew 10:34: “I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

        • Robert Smith

          Cameron says: >>>Do something about people getting hooked on drugs & then turning to crime to support their habit. <<<

          Make drugs legal for adults and make the so cheap that addicts don't have to steal for them.

          Rob

          • 45caliber

            That solves nothing. First, drugs are as cheap as it costs to make them. You can’t make them “cheap” without subsidising someone’s habit. Second, it doesn’t matter how cheap you make them, when a person is hooked and can’t get a job as a result, he will ALWAYS turn to crime.

          • James

            Robert, I have sometimes wondered what would happen to the drug market, if one could buy all the drugs he wanted at Wal-mart for a few dollars. With little profit incentive, how many would drug dealers would stay in business?

          • Robert Smith

            Why does everyone forget that for most of history there were no laws about drugs? It took “reefer madness” in the early 20th centuery to get that on the books.

            It was all legal. But the world didn’t fall apart. In fact Washington grew hemp.

            “Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.”
            - William F. Buckley Jr. quote on Marijuana

            Rob

    • http://?? Joe H.

      edduhhh47duhhs!!!,
      you are another one that when you die they can use an enema and a match box. There are plenty of crooks out there that aren’t “desperate” and commit all kinds of crimes. Does the art theif that steals a Renoir need food or does he just want big bucks?? What about the people that shop lift as a habit?? There are Drs all over the world that talk about that. What about the woman that shoplifts clothes when she has a full closet at home? What about “professional crooks? wake upm and get a clue!!!

      • eddie47d

        When are you going to get over the name calling Joe Hemroid? I’d rather not but you keep pushing. There are obsessive-compulsive people and that is what these Dr’s are referring too. They have an addiction like an alcoholic. Those that steal Renoir’s are far and few between (thank goodness). So I have plenty of clues Mr matchbox! I didn’t know you wanted me to write a book. I’ll consider it next time.

        • JeffH

          Write a book? Oh, come now. I do have a suggestion for the title…”Memories from a third grade mind” and a pen name…Don T Getit… would be appropriat don’t you think…

  • http://n/a mike

    The 2nd Amendment,as well as the other Amendments, SHOULD NOT be arbitrated,or altered in any way. Too many patriotic lives and too much blood was shed to incorporate these Amendments to OUR CONSTITUTION of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

    Enough of the “bleeding heart” crap from you people who expect ME to protect you when the SH-T hits the fan!!

    Lead me… Follow me… or get the hell out of my way!!

    • 45caliber

      The liberals remind me of the group in Los Angeles after the Rodney King riots started. They are against guns but when faced with danger they want one – whether they are carrying it or someone else is. And if someone else is, then they have nothing but contempt for that person AFTER the gun is no longer needed.

      • Cameron

        I read an article by a writer for a gun mag who lived in LA at that time. All his non-gun-owning neighbors came running to his house wanting to “borrow” a gun, like a cup of sugar. He politely told them no, if they wanted a gun they could follow the law (& wait a week) to get possession of one. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that time to see the looks on their faces!

        • 45caliber

          A lot of gun shops had the same experience. And it was a two week wait in CA, not just one.

    • James

      Mike, the 2nd Amendment is not the source of our right to bear arms. You’ve been brainwashed. Read what I’ve written above. The right existed before the amendment did. The amendment simply says the right shall not be infringed by the federal government.

  • AZ Man

    If you wish me no ill, you are as safe as a baby in it’s crib from my gun.

  • Jim H.

    My gun is like a fire extinguisher or first aid kit. I pray I’ll not need them, but if I do need it, I’ll have it.

    • 45caliber

      Exactly.

  • ONTIME

    We the Homer Simpsons aka the peons and great unwashed are ever mindful that manners are important, being polite and courtesy is always appreciated, so when a politician is up there giving a speech to “We the people” the “right to carry” is a reminder for them to stick closer to the truth and mind their manners.

  • jopa

    Growing up in the midwest, guns in everyones home ,everyone waiting for fall hunting season the idea of anyone taking our guns never even crossed our minds.Even today I think it is an issue blown way out of proportion.Only here I hear of the boogieman coming to take everything we have.There is one thing though,some of you may lose a little freedom for awhile when you make threats against elected officials on these sites that are more than likely being monitored by some govt. official.Always be careful what you type in because it can and will be used against you.

    • 45caliber

      They say even a blind pig can find an acorn once in awhile.

      You just proved you can say something of use – congrats on your first good post!

    • Robert Smith

      Hi jopa,

      >>>Only here I hear of the boogieman coming to take everything we have.<<<

      Part of the problem I see with from the left is that their views aren't respected in the choices they want to make. It's often claimed that the left wants to make government the "nanny" but in fact it is the impact from the right that is making lives more difficult and is personally invading their choices.

      For example, the biggest is women can't choose about their own reproductive systems. Apparently pregnancy is the "penalty" for having had sex.

      Recreational drugs can't be chosen. Only the christian drug of choice, alcohol, is allowed.

      When one is "in plan" there are almost no choices about what doctor can be selected. The only way to really be able to choose a doctor in today's corporate medicine is to have enough money to pay without insurance of any kind.

      End of life issues are opposed by the right even when VOTED on as has been done twice in Oregon.

      So, why should any wishes from the right be respected?

      My suggestion is that we go back to respecting choices for ALL Americans, not just those blowhards who claim choice for themselves and deny it for others.

      Rob

      • 45caliber

        If you want to respect the wishes for ALL people, as you say, then you must respect my wish to have a gun. The problem isn’t that you want to respect all – you just want to repect the wishes of those who agree with you and to h*ll with those who don’t.

        On the other hand, I can respect your wish to not own a gun if that’s what you want. And I’ll by happy to install a sign in your yard telling everyone of that fact.

        • Cameron

          Need any help putting up signs?

        • Robert Smith

          45, will you please quit making stuff up?

          I used to be an NRA instructor and still have many firearms.

          I sure wish you wouldn’t lie about MY position.

          Rob

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Yeah and I used to be supreme ruler of the world!!!

          • 45caliber

            When you start talking about taking my guns, you were never an NRA instructor.

      • 45caliber

        Oh, and if you are stating that a vote makes the decision to do or not, how about the vote on Prop. 8 in California?

        • Robert Smith

          Hi 45,

          You can’t vote rights and equality from others.

          Rob

          • 45caliber

            You can’t have both. What you are saying is that if you agree with the vote, it should be final. If you don’t agree, it isn’t final.

      • Cameron

        Wanna get laid w/o worrying about getting knocked up, or knocking her up? Don’t wanna be bothered w/birth control? There’s a simple operation that’ll solve that problem. If you believe in abortion on demand, especially “late term”, I’ll volunteer to abort your sorry ass any time you get ready to put action where your mouth is. Wanna use “recreational” drugs? Just make sure you can afford them w/o stealing from others, or needing the services of medics (I used to be one & I’ve picked up pieces of people to put into body bags), or hospitals because you crashed your car or burned your brain up on an overdose. Freedom doesn’t include the freedom to encroach on my happiness because you got wasted & really pissed into the wind.

        • Robert Smith

          From Cameron who asks: >>>Wanna get laid w/o worrying about getting knocked up, or knocking her up?<<>> Don’t wanna be bothered w/birth control?<<>>If you believe in abortion on demand, especially “late term”, I’ll volunteer to abort your sorry ass any time you get ready to put action where your mouth is.<<>> Wanna use “recreational” drugs?<<>> Just make sure you can afford them w/o stealing from others,<<>> or needing the services of medics (I used to be one & I’ve picked up pieces of people to put into body bags),<<<

          DUI shoud ALWAYS be illegal.

          Rob

    • Cameron

      In South LA (that’s Louisiana to those of you North of the Mason-Dixon line) some public schools shut down on the opening day of squirrel season. When I was a Sr in high school (’69) the class play needed some “Western” style guns as props. Several students brought single-action .22′s, one brought a double-barrel shotgun, and one brought a VINTAGE “Civil” War era Sharps carbine, all unloaded. The guns were left in the unlocked prop room. nobody messed w/them, & after the play the guns went home w/ their owners, none the worse for wear. Try that today!

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Cameron,
        It would be a cold day in hades before you graduated!!! Your parents would go to jail. A bunch of students would need counciling because the mean old gunners brought guns(gasp) to school!!!!

      • independant thinker

        When I was in high school (class of 64) one of our teachers presented a program on firearms a couple of times and Ben Pearson of archery fame did an archery demonstration in the gym.

  • Allan

    “They” use urban violence and chaos to keep us busy and scared; hence, they don’t confiscate guns from the gangs and villains. Ridding of guns from good citizens will inflict more fear among The People. Furthermore, law enforcement must have been given order to inflict fear throughout the country; therefore, police brutality scenarios have been climbing alarmingly. Are “they” getting ready for police states?

    • Cameron

      Remember New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

      • dan az

        cameron
        why didnt they (just say NO!}

  • http://Walkermedia.org ARTHUR

    THE CANONS BARREL IS THE SETTLING ARGUMENT. THE THREAT OF ITS USE IS USUALLY SUFFICIENT, I SEE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS SUPERIOR TO MANS LAWS ALTHOUGH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AFFIRMS THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PROTECT HIMSELF AND HIS PROPERTY. OUR LORD AFFIRMED THIS REGARDING A MANS HOUSE AND PROPERTY AND SELF. GOVERNMENTS HAVE MURDERED MILLIONS SOON AS THE WEAPONS ARE TAKEN UP. MILITARY RULES SAY, DONT GIVE UP YOUR GUN. EVERY MAN IS A MILITIA CADRE. IF THEY COME FOR OUR WEAPONS, THEN IS THE TIME TO ARGUE REAL LOUD, IT WILL STOP KGB TACTICS. A GUN LOVER HERE, ITS A GOOD INSURANCE POLICY AND DEFENSE ATTY, AND IT PROVIDES MEAT ON THE TABLE….

  • http://gmail i41

    The socalist dumocraps have been pusifing everyone since the 60′s on firearms and fighting. In late 60′s and early 70 when I went to high school and country school every vehicle that was parked there had at least 2 guns in it. A .22 and either a shotgun, or a rifle depending the time of the years. If you needed shells and you had the money anyone could by them. My first box of .22 long rifle I bought when I was 7 for hunting jack rrabbits. I took a .308 to school to do the stock and reblue the metal. Now my gads there would be a melt down at school. I remember we had a democrat senator running for office that was visiting our government class and beleived Kent State was a crime scene, the teacher asked what some one should think when a gun was pointed at you and you were told to stop, the senator said guns were just a prop to make you think, the teachers said if someone points a gun at you ought hope you had better think it was hot and ready to fire. I think the tea party is scaring the socialist democrats because of that fact. Use the same principal on thugs and gang bangers, no repeat offenders.

    • 45caliber

      I agree.

  • 2miltap

    I always thought my M1911 would be handy enough, plus a .38 I have. But recently, more or less just because I felt like it, I went into our local gun shop to buy some 12 gauge buckshot ammo. I haven’t fired buck since 1945! Our gun shop is like barber shops used to be — a gathering place for guys who want to lie to each other about their hunting exploits (fishermen aren’t the only ones , ya know!), and share a common interest. Anyway, when I bought the buck, one of the guys there asked, “What are you gonna shoot with buckshot?” My reply: “Nobody – I hope!” I mean that — nobody I hope. But, if that “nobody” is on my property, doing illegal things that I don’t much like — Sayonara Baby.

    • James

      2miltap, Someone being on your property illegally, isn’t grounds for shooting him. The intruder must be doing something that endangers your life, like breaking into your house brandishing a gun.

  • meteorlady

    Well duh! I mean if criminals know there is a well armed citizenry, why wouldn’t crime go down?

  • AB2

    Interesting photo… that weapon does not fire those cartridges ;-)

    • independant thinker

      Looks to me like a 9mm pistol with 9mm ammo next to it.

  • Allan

    Check this out.
    Statistically correct.

    http://o.bamapost.com/

  • Allan

    The Obama healthcare scheme includes a buildup of another 17,000 IRS agents. This was confirmed by the IRS commissioner Douglas Shuman in his testimony before Congress. An estimated 77,000 job providers who employ between 50-200 workers face a potential $2,000 per employee fine if the new army of IRS healthcare enforcers find them to be out of technical compliance with the mandatory insurance feature of the new law.
    An additional 116,000 small businesses employing between 35-49 workers will also come under the jurisdiction of the new IRS health enforcement division.
    Meanwhile, if you are among the country’s tens of millions of Health Savings Account (HSA) and Flexible Spending Account (FSA) holders, starting in 2011 you will no longer be able to use tax-free funds for over-the-counter drugs. And if you pull money out of an HSA for a non-qualified expense, your tax penalty also doubles to 20% (in addition to the existing requirement that your withdrawals are added to your taxable income)… even pro-Administration fat-cat Warren Buffett called “2,000 pages of nonsense…”

  • Allan

    I didn’t mean to change the subject with the Obamacare, but it is so damaging I have to share it.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.