Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs

Reader Comments
Back to article

I support the right for an individual to own a gun. Although I do not own a gun myself, I believe the second amendment should countinue to protect that right, and any outrageous limitations would certainly infringe on the Founding Father's initial idea. However, I believe the right was intended for law-abiding citizens, not those who abuse priviliges.

Ellen H. of CO 1:22PM March 31, 2008

The Second Amendment does not grant a right to bear arms. It merely protects the right which is the individual's by virtue of his being human. An individual right to bear arms exists irrespective of government. An individual human being has the right to his life. He therefore has the right to defend his life. And it follows that he also has the right to the means necessary to defend his life. An Individual can delegate his self-defense right to a government, but does not surrender that right. In emergency situations, eg. when there is no time to call the police, an individual has the right to use deadly force to defend himself against an aggressor. A gun is often the best tool to use in defense of his life.

Jerry Varner of CO 6:16PM March 30, 2008

I am sure that the Founding Fathers meant that individuals can bear arms. There is definitely a need to put controls on bearing arms because like anything else, there are always a few people who will push the limits and take things out of control. However, I think that it is an infringement on our rights as citizens of the United States to say that we cannot have guns. There is no need to take something that is necessary away because of the people who misuse it.

Megan M. of CO 6:24PM March 19, 2008

Fact number one to consider is that the Bill of Rights was created to outline the rights of the individual when considering the formation of a centralized federal government, not collective responsibilities.
Number two is the formation of this amendment. In its original form, before it was ratified, the first line stated "The individual's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It was to be put in the Constitution under article I section 9, regarding civil rights.
The reason it was being considered was because the people in the anti-federalist movement were afraid that the formation of a centralized government with a military body would soon become so powerful that the citizens governed by it would have no power to control it.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.
Enacting strict gun control only ensures that the tree is never refreshed, and just gets bigger and more immovable, and that any attempt to rise up would result in only the blood of patriots being shed. The government has no need to fear a flaccid uprising of people armed with rocks and shovels.
Thanks to the lack of vision of those who support gun control, this ultimate reality may come to pass.
The only weapon that shouldn't be available to everyone is a nuclear warhead. But if I want to have an Abrams tank in my backyard, it should be my right (if I could afford it). If the US is threatened you can be certain I will use it in our defense, but if the time comes to revolt, it would be employed in that capacity, as would all of my other firearms (that I actually do own, legally). That is why the well regulated militia bit was put in, it is only a suppliment to the regular army, but the army should never increase in size to the point where the armed population could no longer contest its intentions.

of NH 10:28AM March 18, 2008

Gun control is nothing more than people control by the slave masters, it is and always was the elimination of freedom for the general public...history books are full of this fact.
We need a constitutional law that any public officer of any stature that attempts to disarm honorable citizens shall be removed from office within 24 hours and never be allowed to hold any public office ever.
Yours in liberty.

Frank L. Harrer of UT 1:33AM March 15, 2008

Have you all forgotton the Concentration camps. Eisenhower never could.

of DC 9:11PM March 12, 2008

The government's own studies: "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 3, 2003, found "no evidence" that any gun-control law met its stated objective. Mustn't something perform as advertised to benefit the state?
The TENNESSEE LAW REVIEW “Second Amendment Symposium Issue,” 62, no. 3: 513-596 (Spring), 1995, answers all the questions the Supreme Court should require.
The reasons behind the gun-control allure? Perhaps "Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality," by Sarah Thompson, M.D., PhD, 2000, gives one viable answer to the question. One benefit to a state in disarming its citizenry is that such forces them to depend nearly entirely on it to protect their own lives and loved ones - a requirement the government has no affirmative obligation to perform, putting redress in the hands, and pockets, of attorneys after the fact. Criminals can't provide the lawyers with much money. Working citizens seeking redress, however, have assets that can be plumbed, making possible their re-victimization by the legal system controlled by the lawyers "helping" them. That's POWER - of a VERY un-American kind!!!

Rev. Conrad C. Gabbard of AZ 3:18PM March 11, 2008

First, I couldn't believe that USNews would even publish an article that would show both sides of "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed...." Now if you guys are going to actually give both sides of a debate going forward, I might start actually start reading your rag again instead of lining my bird cage with it.

Al of OH 8:59PM March 10, 2008

As stated in several of the briefs I've read, the wording of the second amendment doesn't matter. What does is the intent of the framers, and the use of the term 'The Right of the People'.
The Federal Government, any State or any other government division do not have rights, they only have Powers granted to them by the people via constitutional and legislative intervention. Only individuals have 'Rights', and all other references to 'rights' in the constitution are clearly recognized as individual rights. Thus it is with the second amendment as well.

Ron Brace of MN 5:20PM March 10, 2008

Don't make simple things complex for the purpose of obfuscation. When the FIRST human picked up a rock or a stick to protect themselves the RIGHT to bear arms was established.

Jingo John of CO 4:31PM March 10, 2008