Thank you

The other Amendments of the US Bill of Rights deal with the individual. It is lodgical that the Second Amendment should also deal with the individual, there is no text that sets it apart from the context of the others.

This decision will be a blessing. Now reasonable gun control laws can be discussed without the fear that guns can be taken from law abiding persons, leaving them at the mercy of gun toting criminals. Leagally abolish guns and only criminals will have guns. It would be nice if all guns could be destroyed so we could have q more peaceful world. That is wishful thinking. I’ll keep mine, thank you.

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.

In The recent five to four Supreme Court ruling affirming the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms four of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices denied that the American people have that right.

The five justices who affirmed that right are:

Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr.
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Samuel E, Alito Jr.
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

The four dissenting Justices are:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Justice David H. Souter
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice Steven G. Breyer

In supporting that individual right Justice Scalia stated, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is not limited to state militias, as some historians have argued. Rather, it protects “the inherent right of self-defense,”

This decision closely follows the original intent of the Founding Fathers in writing of the Second Amendment and enforces the absolute need and right of American citizens to defend themselves. In support of that argument here are a few enlightening statistics;
1. In most large metropolitan areas the response time for the police to arrive at the scene of an emergency call (911) ranges from six to over eleven minutes.
2. In some large cities the 911 system is so overloaded that even to actually be connected to an operator entails waits of ten minutes or more during peak hours. Then you need to add the above response times.
3. In rural areas where long distances are involved, response times can be very extended.
4. Should gun lock Laws now be challenged? As they basically make a gun inoperable in an emergency situation. (Where did I put the damn key?)

The following are some quotes from our Founding Fathers in regard to the people’s right to keep and bear arms:

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

To me it is very obvious that the above dissenting justices are either completely ignorant of the intent of our Founding Fathers in writing the Second Amendment or they are dishonestly ignoring history to advance their own socialistic agendas.

In regards to the term “Militia” in the United States it is defined as “every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45” by law.

In every case where “The People” is mentioned in the Constitution it refers to individual rights. Attempts to say that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to state controlled militias is in direct opposition of the intended meaning of the Second Amendment. If a militia is controlled by the state, it has the power to be an arm of the state to oppress the people. The above statements by our Founding Fathers show that this is what they were very concerned about and why the right to keep and bear arms was meant for the individual.

In all fairness I should attempt to give the arguments put forth by those with opposing views.

The below excerpt from The Los Angeles Times gives you the philosophy of Justice Stevens who apparently believes we don’t even have the right to have arms for hunting or self defense. Is he Ignorant, stupid or just dishonest in ignoring all the above beliefs by our Founding Fathers?
.
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 27, 2008

But in his 46-page dissent, Stevens accused Scalia of misreading the words of the 2nd Amendment and spinning its history to ignore its focus on organized militias.

The 2nd Amendment, ratified more than 200 years ago, says that “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 was adopted, Stevens said, to protect the right of the people to maintain well-regulated state militias. That does not involve a right to “use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense,” he wrote.

The following is where the liberal side of the gun control issue at least makes an honest statement of their ultimate goal:

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

It seems to me that the four Supreme Court justices and especially Justice Stevens who support the dissenting opinion above agree with Mrs. Sara Brady. What if there was one more Liberal on the court?

Background checks are fine but should have some serious restrictions. The application should identify the person wishing to purchase a firearm for a record check but should not describe the firearm as to type, model or serial number. When the application is approved all records of the application should be destroyed at all government levels. Citizens should have access through freedom of information laws to see if any records have been retained and if they have, should be able to sue any agency illegally retaining such records.

R.D. Cook