Does the Second Amendment Provide the Right to Bear Arms? U.S. Adults Think So

BUSINESS WIRE ^ | June 03, 2008 | NA

[neverdem]

However, Public Still Favors Stricter Gun Control

ROCHESTER, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the Second Amendment expected at some point this month, The Harris Poll^® finds that by a margin of over two to one, more U.S. adults believe that the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms. Furthermore, the survey also finds that more of the U.S. public continues to favor stricter gun control. However, concerning the impact on the election, the public seems to be split on which presidential candidate would do a better job handling gun control.

These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,602 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive^® between May 5 and 12, 2008.

In the next few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide D.C. v. Heller, which concerns whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The question that the Supreme Court will be answering is whether the Second Amendment actually provides an individual with the right to own a gun or whether it provides the state the ability to form a militia.

The Harris Poll showed wording from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the survey’s sample and asked whether U.S. adults think the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms or a state’s right to form a militia, the same question the Supreme Court will be answering this month. The Poll found:

• By 41 percent to 17 percent, a two to one plurality believes that the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms. Interestingly, almost three in ten (29%) feel the Amendment supports both and 5 percent say neither;
• Furthermore, by political party affiliation Republicans by 51 percent to 9 percent believe the Second Amendment supports individuals’ right to bear arms. Democrats also agree, though by a closer 41 percent to 22 percent margin. Independents are even more closely divided with 31 percent to 22 percent thinking that the Amendment supports and individuals’ right to bear arms.

And with regard to gun control:

• A relative majority of U.S. adults – 49 percent – favor stricter gun control, with 20 percent wanting less strict gun control and 21 percent wanting no change. Since 2004, these sentiments have changed slightly with the number favoring stricter gun control going down from 52 percent. Since 1998, however, this has dropped significantly as ten years ago, 69 percent favored stricter gun control;
• By 54 percent to 18 percent a majority favors stricter laws relating to the control of hand guns and another 18 percent want no change. These opinions have not changed much since 2004 when a similar 57 percent to 18 percent also favored stricter control of handguns. Again, a decade makes a larger difference as in 1998, a 76 percent to 19 percent majority favored stricter laws relating to the control of hand guns.

2008 Presidential Campaign

Concerning the three major candidates – John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama – the public is split on which individual would do a good job in handling the gun control issue if elected president:

• By 36 percent to 34 percent John McCain receives slightly higher positive marks than either Democrat. Conversely, Barack Obama receives a 42 percent to 30 percent negative rating as does Hillary Clinton with 40 percent to 30 percent;
• By approximately three in ten, the public is not sure about whether any of the candidates would do a good job.

So What?

Even though many U.S. adults believe the Second Amendment does support an individual’s right to bear arms, the public does not feel this right should be achieved without some gun control. Many U.S. adults still favor stricter gun control, although for the first time in 10 years, this is not a majority. The candidates have not yet made any major policy statements concerning gun control, which is one reason so many are not sure about how they would handle the issue if elected. However, once the U.S. Supreme Court rules, the candidates may be forced to give their opinion and gun control could become an issue in the general election.

Methodology

The Harris Poll^® was conducted online within the United States May 5 and 12, 2008, among 2,602 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated. A full methodology and data tables are available at www.harrisinteractive.com.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

J34157

Q806, 810, 815, 820

About Harris Interactive

Harris Interactive is a global leader in custom market research. With a long and rich history in multimodal research, powered by our science and technology, we assist clients in achieving business results. Harris Interactive serves clients globally through our North American, European and Asian offices and a network of independent market research firms. For more information, please visit www.harrisinteractive.com.

Harris Interactive Inc. 6/08

[neverdem]

However, Public Still Favors Stricter Gun Control

Yeah, that's the ticket. That's why the donkeys became pander bears about Second Amendment rights.

[wastedyears]

GD right it does.

[rightwingcrazy]

“5 percent say neither”

What, pray tell, do these people think that the Amendment says?

[RogerD]

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.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing? I find "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" completely and totally clear, but that's just because I can read. Illiterates may reach a different conclusion, as demonstrated by the Democrats.

[lilylangtree]

‘Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those
who do not.’

Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don’t make more.

24. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves. (Just ask any WWII Jewish survivor.)

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

[Tijeras_Slim]

What, pray tell, do these people think that the Amendment says?

Huh? Like, who won American Idol, you know?

[Sgt_Schultze]

What if the First Amendment were similarly worded...would the left still require controls?

An educated population, being necessary to the enlightenment of an informed state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

[Squantos]

As we all know gun control is a myth..........criminals do not follow laws. All such harms is law abiding working class Americans who follow all laws even when they disagree with em !

Gun Control is about human control. That’s what the jackasses know and want !

I have carried in some form or manner since the age of 16 when my grandfather gave me a 1911A1 as a birthday gift. I carried as a career serviceman and a deputy sheriff for a while and now in my job with uncle sugar again. Not a socialist rat alive that will ever disarm me “completely” with their seditious efforts. If they do such they become viable domestic enemies that are fair game under the oath I took to protect and defend against such .......foreign or domestic.

just my opinion of course.......stay safe !

[MtnClimber]

And I wonder how many of those polled would know that the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is there to protect individual rights against government infringement?

Just because these folks don’t know this does not mean it is not true.

Therefore the 2A is, by definition, protecting individual rights.

[vortigern]

However, once the U.S. Supreme Court rules, the candidates may be forced to give their opinion and gun control could become an issue in the general election.

Once the court makes a ruling, what could a candidate do to thwart the ruling if they disagree with it? Their personal opinion at that point has little if any value.

[IYAS9YAS]

I think even the most basic question was not answered. The second amendment provides nothing. The Constitution does not grant rights, it sets limitations on the government with respect to our rights.

[RetiredArmy]

Those would be your 3d grade drop outs. They know nothing.

[stylin19a]

No, the 2nd doesn't provide the right to bear arms.
It restricts the feds from taking that right away from me.

[vpintheak]

Again, the only proper and right gun control is a nice tight shot group. Anything beyond that is tyranny.

[xsrdx]

Furthermore, the survey also finds that more of the U.S. public continues to favor stricter gun control.

What the public favors is less violence, and most believe erroneously that more "gun control" equates to more "safety" for the children and whatnot.

If people understood that gun control is about control, not crime, that number would decrease to include only the socialists that really just want everybody but the government disarmed.

[Flycatcher]

Re: Your tagline. Here’s one good reason: McCain is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment.

(You asked for one good reason.)

[MosesKnows]

more U.S. adults believe that the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms.

This would indicate that two-thirds of Americans are able to read and comprehend concise and proper English grammar. I would take that to be a good thing but it does give one pause; why are one-third of Americans unable to read and comprehend that same concise and proper English grammar?

[JamesP81]

Furthermore, by political party affiliation Republicans by 51 percent to 9 percent believe the Second Amendment supports individuals’ right to bear arms. Democrats also agree, though by a closer 41 percent to 22 percent margin. Independents are even more closely divided with 31 percent to 22 percent thinking that the Amendment supports and individuals’ right to bear arms.

Which proves something I've come to realize more and more lately. Self-righteous independents who keep crowing about bipartisanship are, in fact, ignorant dolts where the Constitution and liberty are concerned. The only thing worse than someone who is constantly spewing moral indignation is when a complete dumbass is doing it.

[trebb]

I come from Rochester NY and it is a "liberal" bastion. Even those with carry permits have to have their guns unloaded and have a trigger lock installed if they carry in the city limits. It would be easy to find a bunch of brainwashed sheep, that are used to the commie restrictions, to get these poll results. I am a bit shocked that they found as many as they did that believe the 2nd Amendment grants the right.

I moved out in '74 when I joined the Air Force and only go back to visit my Mom, who also listens/reads the mush they espouse up there.

[contemplator]

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.

Two things.

First consider the argument for the Bill of Rights itself. The founders firmly believed that the government did not have power it wasn't expressly given by the citizens. Therefore; a large portion believed the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the government did not have the power to take away those rights to begin with. However; there were those realists in the crowd who knew enough about human nature to predict that without certain explicit protections that politicians of the future would spin it differently and there were certain things which they needed to make sure got extra special protection. The fact that this debate exists at all proves they were right.

Second, consider the format of the wording of the 2nd Amendment. It follow this basic format - (Because of reason A) The right to bear arms will not be infringed. It does NOT say (Because of Reason A and ONLY reason A) The right will not be infringed. The adding of the verbage about the militia was simply a timely example which people of the time readily understood and believed strongly in, there is no evidence that anyone intended it to be the ONLY reason. Were this the only reason then there would have been no overriding reason to place this right in the group of things which needed extra protection.

[Billthedrill]

Many U.S. adults still favor stricter gun control, although for the first time in 10 years, this is not a majority.

Oh, really? VPC and the Brady kids have been saying it's 70% in favor for, oh, how long now?

[neverdem]

Once the court makes a ruling, what could a candidate do to thwart the ruling if they disagree with it? Their personal opinion at that point has little if any value.

You have to understand that doesn't matter to the fourth estate/fifth column. If the Supreme Court rules using strict scrutiny that it is an individual right, the drive by media will go crazy with "blood in the streets" stories. The gun grabbers will try to infringe in other ways, e.g. restrictions on ammo sales, gun show "loophole", etc.

[ArmyTeach]

What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing? Absolutamundo! The Constitution is brilliant in its clarity and simplicity, it's just that liberals overanalyze and twist words to fit their agenda (surprise, surprise!). If 'people' as used in the second amendment is construed to refer to a branch of the government, then why should it not be so construed as used in all the other amendments? Libs need to explain.

[556x45]

Was trying to make sense of the stmt
‘Even though many U.S. adults believe the Second Amendment
does support an individual’s right to bear arms, the public
does not feel this right should be achieved without some
gun control.’
and the words of my FIL came to mind. He thinks he should be allowed b/c theres no trust issue but his neighbors...well they’re all suspect and should be reined in. Yes, he of the Royal We party.

[VOR78]

Agreed. My hope is that the Supreme Court is wise enough to consider these additional attacks that may come in future years and make a strong ruling that addresses at least some of the other attacks such as ammo taxes as well. I guess they can do that? I hope?

In any event, considering what we may be facing soon, we need the strongest Pro 2nd Amendment ruling possible.

[RedRightReturn]

“I think even the most basic question was not answered. The second amendment provides nothing. The Constitution does not grant rights, it sets limitations on the government with respect to our rights.”

BINGO!!! You’ve got the right answer!

The Bill of Rights enumerates (or affirms) rights that are ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR.

[Noumenon]

“Thwe women of my country learned long ago that those without swords may still die upon them.”

Eowyn - Lord of the Rings.

[kabar]

The majority of Americans can’t locate America on a map.

[normy]

NO. The second amendment does not provide the right of Americans to bear arms. It prohibits the government from infringing on our God given right to bear arms for defense of ourselves.

[normy]

Sorry, didn’t read down to your post.

[mnehrling]

Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms or a state’s right to form a militia

It's not 'or', it's both. There is a semicolon between the two clauses indicating they are independent clauses, not either being dependent on each other.

[stylin19a]

s’ok..at least there's 2 of us.

[Condor51]

And with regard to gun control:

• A relative majority of U.S. adults – 49 percent

Okay, since when is 49% a "Majority"? Even with new math (sarc) it still take OVER 50% to have a "majority". The word they want is Plurality. Do they assume their readers are to STOO-PID to understand that word?

In any case this poll means squat. There's more to the 2nd Amendment than just what's written, to wit...

"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."

• A well regulated Militia,
  George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

• being necessary to the security of a free State,
  Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

• the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
  Samuel Adams: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

• shall not be infringed.
  Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

Case closed!

oops, almost forgot... You, yeah you 'public officers' - Like Bloomie, Di-fi and Chuckie Shooooooomer, per the honorable George Mason you have NO RIGHT to own a gun, hand em in pronto 'public officers'. You have till midnight to disarm!

[Myrddin]

Fortunately, the Constitution is not subject to the whims of slanted poll questions. The 2nd Amendment forbids the government from infringing on the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It does not "provide the right". The lefties lack the ability to comprehend the difference between the rights of citizens and the enumerated powers of government.

[Waco]

Wearing a gun should be regarded like wearing a watch. Some do, some don’t. Gun control? Outlaw crime!

[Sacajaweau]

The right to self protection AND HUNTING supercedes the constitution.

Many soldiers were given their "militia supply" guns "as gifts" (a sort of pay) after the revolutionary war ended. I have a copy of a letter (GWashington I believe) and it is very explicit.

Had it been that only militias were to have arms...they would have been returned to the "militia supply".

[DuncanWaring]

McCain is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment.

Difficult to square with the fact that about seven or eight years ago he tried to put an end to gun shows.

[Flycatcher]

Didn’t hear of this. Do tell more.

[B4Ranch]

Having custody of a loaded weapon does not arm you. The skill to use the weapon is what arms a man.

Training and practice are critical!

[Flycatcher]

You're absolutely right. I did some research since you posted to me, and found this:

Through 1998, McCain had a strong pro-gun voting record in Congress. In May 1999, McCain voted in favor of an NRA-supported provision that encouraged, but did not force, small-scale gun collectors who sell firearms occasionally at gun shows to run background checks on customers. The next day, however, McCain led several Republican senators into Trent Lott's office and demanded that the vote be reversed.

That was unknown to me, and it doesn't speak well of McCain.

Thanks for the insight.

[DuncanWaring]

Do a web-search on McCain and “gun show”.

Here’s a couple of representative samples:

http://gunlaws.com/GunShows/index.htm

http://www.gunowners.org/mclott.htm

[B4Ranch]

Bookmark these maps because they show where violent homicides in the US are originating from.

_______________________________________________________________

These maps are from the article titled "Anti-gun Promo Blackfires"

I think perhaps it should have been entitled, "The African Americans are slaughtering each other in our US Cities"

Baltimore, PROPER, which is reflected on the map is 64.34% Black or African American, 31.63% White.

_______________________________________________________________

These Baltimore Sun maps show a terrible problem but do not clarify who the murderers are.

Baltimore Sun map of PEOPLE murdered, 2007:

_______________________________________________________________

Baltimore Sun map of BLACKS murdered, 2007: (264)

_______________________________________________________________

Baltimore Sun map of WHITES murdered, 2007: (12)

Of the 12, 6 were killed *downtown* while probably buying drugs. _______________________________________________________________

That's right a small percentage of people, generally gangs and drug dealers, in our large cities that cause the majority of the gun related homicides in the US. Do not allow this data to be covered up or hidden. Do not allow the gun control nutcases to take away your self defense weapons.

SOURCE: http://essentials.baltimoresun.com/micro_sun/homicides/ Baltimore, PROPER, Population 651154, Baltimore, greater metropolitan area, Population 5.1 Million

[P8riot]

No it doesn’t. It just enumerates that right. The right itself is inalienable. The government cannot grant it or take it away.

[El Gato]

Does the Second Amendment Provide the Right to Bear Arms? U.S. Adults Think So

That's nice. Wrong, but nice. Wrong in two ways. First, the second amendment protects an individual right, not provides one. Second, it's not up for a majority vote.

[El Gato]

First consider the argument for the Bill of Rights itself. The founders firmly believed that the government did not have power it wasn't expressly given by the citizens. Therefore; a large portion believed the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the government did not have the power to take away those rights to begin with. However; there were those realists in the crowd who knew enough about human nature to predict that without certain explicit protections that politicians of the future would spin it differently and there were certain things which they needed to make sure got extra special protection

A good, belt and suspenders approach. Bet those guys would have made good engineers too, although their designs might have been a little more expensive, and a littler heavier, they would last forever, and virtually always "git 'er done", whatever 'er might be. :)

[El Gato]

I guess they can do that?

Not directly. They can only rule directly on the case before them. However in justifying that ruling, they can expand things a little or a lot, to other cases and situations. But if they rule that the right is an individual one, that "shall not be *infringed*", it's hard to see that any such ban on ammo, guns, or even such accessories as holsters and fancy sighting systems, can stand. Especially bans on "keeping", limitations on "bearing" they might get away with, since there is plenty of historical precedent for limited controls on that, but only at the state and local level. For example, no carrying hidden weapons without special permit, no carry in bars, etc. but complete bans on bearing would not be allowed either.

[El Gato]

There is a semicolon between the two clauses indicating they are independent clauses, not either being dependent on each other.

There's no semicolon in any historical copy of the Second Amendment that I've ever seen. Some have one comma, some appear to have 3. Remember they were hand copied, and sometimes the scribes got a little creative with punctuation, which was not so formally defined in those days in any event.

But they are still independent clauses, with the second one being the operative one, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". (some versions have a comma between "arms" and "shall", which makes no sense grammatically, but commas need not, they can just be a place to take a breath.

[El Gato]

McCain is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment

For a Republican to get a C+ from the NRA is is not evidence of staunchness. Maybe a sometimes defender would be more correct. Better grade than Obama or Clinton though. His GOA grades were as low as low gets.

Why? Because he most certainly is not a staunch defender of the first amendment, and as we all know the first defends the second just as much as the second defends the first. If the first is no longer followed, it's harder, much harder to defend the second amendment, which then puts the first, and the rest, in even greater peril.

[Shooter 2.5]

The rating from the NRA is a more accurate rating than the GOA. If the rating from the GOA for McCain was as low as low gets, how did clinton and obama score lower?

The reason the NRA rated McCain with the C+ was because he wanted all sellers at gunshows to have a Federal License and that action would not close down gunshows. The NRA disagrees with McCain on that issue.

McCain voted AGAINST the assault weapons ban. In thar respect, he’s a better candidate than GW is.

[democratsaremyenemy]

Most of the arguements about the Second Amendment made by both sides revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms. What both sides fail to understand is that the Second
Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!

What the Constitution does do is identify what powers the people grant to the government. This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the goverment what it can and cannot do.

Read the Second Amendment closely, it doesn’t say the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the goverment can not infringe on that right. The same is true for most of the other amendments (the exception being the
Sixth Amendment with establishes a right to a speedy trial).

‘’Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.’’
— Ayn Rand