Only if the person has a nice set of "GUNS"

Yes, I absolutley do!!!!!!

I believe in many personal freedoms, other than just the right to submit to big corporate government controll.

I do!

As part of a militia, yes. [Which is what the amendment states, FYI] Otherwise, to me it's not a right, per se, but a priviledge that I would personally never take advantage of. Too many household accidents.

I definetly believe the People have the right to bear arms, but I also believe certain people shouldn't be allowed anywhere near 'em.

I believe in the Right to give ((HUGGS))) Yo:):) Bangin:):)

Yes, to interpret it any way else (i.e. Militia) is false nonsense. The continental congress clearly intended to give ALL ameericans the right tho hold weapons. They would have faced a rebellion if they hadent, almost all of the colinists had and NEEDED a gun for survival back then. It is ludacris to think the founding fathers were stupid enough to just mean a militia. Guns dont kill...people do.

Most of the rhetoric surrounding this issue concerns the "Right" to bear arms and the inherent privileges attched thereto. What is seldom, if ever, touched upon is the inherent responsibility which necessarily accompanies this perceived "right". From my perspective, those who are willing to go to the wall for this relatively meaningless legal ability rarely consider the responsibility of gun ownership. Any responses refuting this claim should really include a reasonable explanation for 30,000 deaths due to firearms in America annually.

I Don't own one personally, but i know a lot of hunters that do. So i guess i believe they have a right to bear their arms. But if Someone breaks in my house I'll gut them with my gas powered ice auger.

Yes I do. +5

What is there to disbelieve?

Yes, Yes I do. Lifeling member of the NRA. Besides, why shouldn't we, the crooks will always have them.....

absolutley

Absolutely. But really that shouldn't matter. It was written into the Constitution by people who believed in it, revisionist reinterpretations notwithstanding.

I certainly do.

Only if you are not afraid of getting them cold, than it is better to wear long sleves.

yes, there are some people that shouldn't have that right

Yes. I am a liberal with a carrying permit and a .357 in a shoulder holster.

Yes, i dont see why people shouldnt be able to have bear arms, their so much more useful and cool, theyre hairy, warm and much stronger than human arms.

Yes, I do believe. I also think that some restrictions should be in place to alleviate the crazy shooting violence in America lately.

"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." The intent of this statement is clearly to keep the government from restricting the ability of the people to keep arms in order to defend themselves as an organized group from aggressors. Think about the times in which the Bill of Rights was written, and the context is clear. This does not suggest that individuals should be able to keep guns for any other purpose. However, the sticky point is this: if you don't allow the populace to keep arms in times of peace, how do they acquire them when danger threatens and they must organize a defense?

Absolutely. 2nd ad. is about the individual right to arms. The Gov. has guns so we have guns to defend ourselves from the gov. if need be. - It is not about hunting.

I know there is a clause in the constitution that says one has a right to bear arms under certain conditions.The conditions that are included are not the ones followed by people today(one must be part of a militia),so the the right to bear arms is distorted in it's meaning and is wrong.It did not state what weapons are included in this statement for clubs or knives could be considered arms other than guns.Therefore I disagree with the right for anyone to own and use a gun.

Yes i believe in it .

yes

First, there is no reasonable explanation for that number of deaths. Except for war (perhaps) more people die in the United States from firearms than the remainder of the world- - - combined. Trying to wash away the iniquity of this atrocious statistic by using suicide and police officers could not be more offensive, nor could it more poignantly demonstrate both a lack of understanding and my point. Secondly, there is no comparison between motor vehicles and hand guns. We have built a society which relies on the automobile for its very existence. The necessity of equally prolific firearms in America simply doesn't exist. Contrary to the arguments from the NRA and gun advocates such as yourself, guns are not necessary. I am a retired police officer and in 20 years of law enforcement I never shot anyone. This is the case with the vast majority of police officers. The unbridled proliferation of firearms is more of a danger to police officers than a comfort and most recognize that. Furthermore, police officers know that armed, untrained citizens can pose as much of a threat as armed criminals. Police officers spend a considerable amount of time in training, much of it with firearms. The training is considerably more than how to use firearms, it is also when to use firearms. The days of shoot first and ask questions later have long since gone by the wayside. It sounds like you were raised in the presence of firearms. While that may make you feel safer, it makes me look at you with a wary eye. I have never needed a gun to go to the grocery store, or to make me feel safe in doing so. I can leave my house unarmed and feel as safe as I did when I was forced to carry a firearm at all times. If you can't or, at the very least, you feel safer when you leave the house armed, I find that quite strange and thus the wary eye. So, despite your incantations to the contrary, there are still 30,000 deaths a year at the hands of firearms and you are no closer to a viable explanation for it. Perhaps if you were to look at the rush of the power the possession of a handgun creates, or the feeling of superiority it brings and compare that with the safety of your friends and neighbors who may very well be more endangered by your firearm possession than comforted by it, you may begin to see my point. Otherwise, 30,000 may be just the number now and it may be higher in the future.

The 30,000 annual deaths ‘at the hands of firearms’ is exactly backwards. The deaths are at the hands of people. And clearly most who would commit suicide with a gun would commit suicide without a gun. . The 30,000 statistic is deceptive at best. Please don’t defend the indefensible.

You, once again, seem to believe the daily experiences and the training of a police officer are the same as an NRA trained civilian. Police officers do panic, but it is considerably less likely since they deal with both armed criminals and armed vigilantes on a daily basis and are trained, and continue to be trained, in dealing with those scenarios.

There isn't much controversy among police agencies across the nation in the proper use of deadly force. These rules and the circumstances when these rules are used is drummed into the thought processes of police officers regularly. You, once again, somehow believe that civilians possess the same training and abilities in that regard as do police officers. I can say without fear of contradiction, you are wrong..........dangerously wrong. Police officers are not perfect, but I'd trust a cop over a civilian in a deadly force situation every single time, without exception. And, if you think making a police officer wary is something you should not be concerned with, take an inventory of what you have and let me know when you get to the freedom to move about part. You see, carrying a gun is far from the most important thing a police officer does in his daily work. The most important duty a police officer is charged with is the ability to remove one's freedom to move about. So next time you feel cocky about a police officer becoming wary, think about how much less wary he would be if you were locked up.

...

Definately!

<reposted on proper thread>

Yes i do . I think It is a American right that should never be abolished . I understand bad things can happen with guns . Just they dont really report on the good that happens with them . Like a prowler scared away because he heard somebody say get the gun . Or a robber who is armed and ready to kill getting shot first cause the homeowner or store clerk had a gun .A anti gun law would only do one thing it would keep the civillian population disarmed and the crimminals would still be armed .Guns dont kill people do .And alot of crimminals are ready to kill.

Yes, of course! It's in our Constitution. It's foolish and naive to think the crimnals and the Government will "play nice" and follow the laws if they know that we don't have any guns.Ask anyone still left alive that was living under Hitler, Stalin, or PolPot's regime.

Absolutely! Any Country/revolutionary group would be crazy to attempt to invade the US. . However, the United States will not be invaded and taken over by force. The US citizens will be convinced to turn in their weapons as well as anyone else who doesn't. We will be convinced that guns are bad and people who have guns are bad too. That's how we will be taken over/invaded, by ideas, however wrong. Be careful of what others persuade.

What's the obsession with bear arms? what about bear legs or bear ears? nah only kidding. Yes I believe in the right to bear arms.

yes i do

<misposted. reposted: *sigh*>

oh c'mon dont stop answering

The right to bear arms is fundamental like the right to free speech or practice religion as you would like. It is not about hunting or keeping militias armed. If you take away the right to bear arms, the Constitution will be violated and the pact between the people and the government broken. The consequences of such a violation would be severe. Locke said it is the responsibility of a free people to overturn such a corrupted government and replace it with one that recognizes the rights of its people. No one is suggesting that overturning the government is necessary, only that the government know and respect all the fundamental freedoms. A government that takes away one right will surely claim the others as time and circumstances permit. Free practice of religion and speech will surely be the next to disappear, just as they were in Hitler's Germany shortly after he confiscated all personal firearms in the early 1930's. This freedom is certainly the one that protects and insures the others. No one can be safe in a country where freedom of ownership and use is prohibited or restricted.

Yes I have a shorth sleeve on now.

as they say in the second amendment of the US constitution, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear army, shall not be infringed"....at the time, in 1776, they were just talking about during times of war....but, i have a glock 17.......times have changed.......Brian.....