Do Americans have the right to own a gun? Of course we do. It’s in our Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Posted on 03/07/2018 7:09:09 AM PST by w1n1
Do Americans have the right to own a gun? Of course we do. It’s in our Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The Supreme Court has already overturned several gun control laws within the last decade alone. They determined that the banning of guns were unconstitutional.
Yet there are still some people who argue for stricter gun control policies. They insist that gun ownership leads to gun-related crimes and that banning guns can reduce violent crime.
However the statistics have proven time and time again that the rate of violent crime will go up even if ordinary, law-abiding citizens are denied ownership of guns. And let's face it, criminals don’t obey laws in the first place. They won’t care if there’s a gun ban or not and will find ways to get their hands on a firearm.
If our guns, our means of defense, are taken away from us, how will we protect ourselves and our loved ones from becoming victims of violent crime?
But don't take our word for it. We asked some of the top experts what they think Americans don’t understand about gun ownership and what their opinions are on these misconceptions.
Here's what they had to say:
Chuck Michel, Calgunlaws
"Many Americans have been misled by the false narrative paid for by billionaire elitists financing the gun ban lobby. The gun banners have spent hundreds of millions convincing people to ignore the reality that firearms are used far more often to save lives than misused to hurt people. Gun banners are terrified that the public will realize that guns are a net benefit to society. Guns have social utility. Guns save lives." Read the rest of the gun experts opinion here.
Thank-you for posting.
One thing libs hate more than guns is gun owners. The real crime, in their minds, is disagreeing with them. That is unforgiveable.
gun control is, to me, among other things, sticking Ifs, ands and buts in where they otherwise don’t exist and were never intended!
But that’s just me!
;)
@PlanetWTF?
**********************
No, the right is NOT in the second amendment - the right is self-evident and inalienable from a higher power than the Constitution. The 2A is merely to instruct what the govt may or may not do with this right.
>
“Many Americans have been misled by the false narrative paid for by billionaire elitists financing the gun ban lobby. The gun banners have spent hundreds of millions convincing people to ignore the reality that firearms are used far more often to save lives
>
I believe the term they were looking for was: INDOCTRINATED (aka ‘public schools’ aka ‘govt schools’ aka ‘indoctrination centers’)
Unfort., it’s being paid by ALL taxpayers
For liberals, the real crime is armed citizens making the imposition of their liberal agenda more than a little problematic.
We were in Vegas one time sitting at an outside concert. I started talking to a couple from the UK. I asked then what they thought about guns. The lady shivered at the word “gun” they said no one should have one. I replied that probably have the people in town here carry one. I don’t see anyone getting shot. I reached into my pocket and slipped a cartridge out of a mag and handed it to her. They got up and left. Kinda mean but fun thing to do. They probably flew back to England that night.
WHAT THE MEDIA DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW
WHY PARKSIDE WENT WRONG ?
IT IS BECAUSE OF POLICIES-
;IT LOOKS LIKE THIS
and never should have happened
WAS THE BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT PROHIBITED
FROM BEARING ARMS INSIDE BY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES ???
WERE THEY SO FED UP WITH THE SCHOOL LENIENT POLICIES
IT BECAME WHY BOTHER TO GO THERE ?
In the Parkland case, their security system had a dismal record concerning student safety and security that should be brought to public discussion particularly beginning with this school having a so called “gun free zone”. But that does not fit this perverted agenda created by the democratic party ( in name only) goose stepping adherents in the media and must be concealed. So they make up it is guns and the NRA garbage in their swill mills
From what has been reported .This school system did have an understanding with the Broward County Sheriff’s Dept. An officer who may be armed assigned to patrol the multi acre site in a golf cart, but bans guns from the rest of its internal security
Criticism arose when the officer assigned to this duty who was nearing retirement was reported to arrive late and after Cruz had entered the building. The officer stationed himself outside the large structure and had called for support. Two BCSD officers responded Which and did the same seeming to refusing to enter the building while armed . He then left before Cruz did.
Also responding to a BCSD request was the Coral Springs PD who appears did not have this gun restriction entered the building and cleared it. Cruz was captured while fleeing with other students by an alert CSPD officer off the 45 acre campus. While para medics were denied entrance by the BCSD to see if they could save any of the victims.
Those laissez faire attitudes strongly suggest examining records beside the interaction between the BCSD and this school board also calls for a review how the bureaucracy at this school handled student vs student, and student vs teacher (Cruz was accused of this) altercations, vandalism, thefts, and drug use. Which are bound to occur were being dealt with.
To which a dramatic reduction in disciplinary incidents were reported after the selection of Obama’s Chicago friend as school superintendent occurred which was publicly acclaimed.and was receiving large grant from Obama’s Attorney General because of those results. That many critics claimed encouraged criminal activity. Which should require Trump Administration US Attorney General beside find out why when the FBI knew that Cruz should not be able to purchase weapons did. And review these grant programs instituted by the previous Obama administration.
Because of these Ding Bat liberal policies it brings up another question. Just how safe and secure were those kids ? .Examine records reporting how student vs student, and student vs teacher altercations, vandalism, and thefts, which are bound to occur were being dealt with. Beside the arrangements with the BCSD.
Because in an educational unit this size it’s pretty clear their security system failed . In a secure system Cruz would have never gotten within the grounds let alone inside.
Now that school board has decided to tear down the school which was probably raised by a funding referendums and the grounds house a memorial
Sources for the formulation of this report come from postings from newspaper and television stations placed in Free Republic by volunteers during the period of Feb 14th to the 25th
The original sources are linked in these postings
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3635254/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3635029/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3634902/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3634905/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3634916/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3635556/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3636095/posts
http://www.theusmat.com/index.htm
Agreed. Furthermore, every article like this should highlight how many times per day/year that firearms in the hands of citizens are used to prevent violent crime. According to out own DoJ statistics! Some say up to 4 million!!!
Furthermore, in 2005 the SCOTUS had ALREADY RULED in Castle Rock v Gonzalez that the POLICE have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to PROTECT PRIVATE CITIZENS! Even when notified! (Even after they disarm us!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
...yet somehow the schools and other gun free zones have NO RESPONSIBILITY for the safety of those they disarm and require to be there. This needs to get tested in court.
JMHO the only way currently for a citizen to be deprived of his guns is for a disgruntled family member or neighbor with a grudge to go to the po-po and bleat, “He has guns, he threatened me, and I’m afraid for my life”.
Rules of evidence? “We don’t need no stinking rules of evidence!”
They can split hairs with the Constitution.
They can't argue with the Declaration.
If they do, they're "Declaration deniers", and should be beaten and escorted out of the country they have denied.
True...
bkmk
I cannot state how much I disagree with the reasoning used in this article. For example:
“Do Americans have the right to own a gun? Of course we do. It’s in our Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” “
What the author is necessarily implying is that if the 2nd Amendment could somehow be repealed, that we’d suddenly not have the RKBA. That is patent nonsense: as human beings, we have at least as much right as an animal to protect our own lives, our families and our liberty. An animal will use its teeth and claws to do that (try putting a cat in a car-carrier to go to the vet, or backing a dog into a corner while making threatening gestures, and you’ll see). Well, we don’t have very effective teeth or claws...but we do have a brain and hands, with which to make tools. Bottom line, the Founders knew this, and also knew that the Constitution was the rule book for our government. NONE of the rights mention in the body or the amendments to the Constitution were granted by government - they exist in a state of nature due to our mere existence as human beings. The 2nd Amendment, specifically, ONLY says that the right shall not be infringed - by the government. It does NOT say, “All Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.” It necessarily implies that the RKBA exists, and then stops the government from even trying to limit it.
Another problem that I have with this article (and any person who argues along the same lines) is that it puts emphasis on the social utility of firearms. It is undoubtedly nice that people use firearms to defend their lives and homes - but it is cream on the cake, a side benefit. The REAL use of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent tyranny. It is to make anyone in government contemplating turning our country into a dictatorship absolutely fear the result...and, if they try anyway, to make sure that some future generation would have in their hands the same kind of means as the Founding Generation had, with which to revolt and (in the case of the future generation) to restore our Republic. It is SPECIFICALLY about threatening the government, not street crime.
Excellent. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.